The Long Swords Rebellion Re-Visited - Needlessly.

Day 1,095, 20:36 • Published in Canada Canada • by Wilhelm Gunter

I've been following this from a far, and have been attempting to re-orient myself to the political climate and the ongoings here in eCanada over the last few months.

But before I go further, allow me to admit and confess - it was no secret back then, that I was (and am again) a Private in the CAF, and at the time, I did participate in the LSR as a participant - which simply meant adorning the LSR avatar. That was the extent of my involvement.

I'd like to share an analogy. A sports analogy, namely one from hockey and the NHL. In a game, there are many rules and regulations concerning infractions that take place during a hockey game. A team may not "ice" the puck, but if it happens, and it happens many times over within a game, the play is called the puck is returned to the end of the rink where the infraction began. A player trips another. That player sits for 2 minutes in the 'sin-bin' unless the other team scores before the 2 minutes conclude. A player enters the offensive zone before the puck, resulting in an offside: The play is whistled-down, and the puck returns to a point just outside of the offensive zone. A player physical disturbs a goaltender, and earns a 2-minute visit to the penalty box for 'interference'. There are all forms of self-policing.

Some times emotions get really heated, and a player will commit another illegal act: he will use his stick as a weapon against another player. This act is also forbidden by the NHL, and can result in a severe penalty that endures beyond that single game: a suspension of several games or even the rest of a season. Even attacking a player with one's own body (ie, a punch) can be construed this way. And in these instances, it is not unheard of, criminal charges being laid. The following link demonstrates this perfectly.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/27964-Judges-message-to-hockey-players-Criminal-code-takes-precedence-over-onice-code.html

However, in the cases where the criminal courts got involved, it was because there were criminal laws that were alleged to have been violated. The internal self-policing of the NHL (or other hockey leagues) was deemed insufficient because there were also criminal laws (assault, assaut with a weapon) that existed and were alleged to have occurred.

In the case of the LSR, the only thing that was violated was the internal Code of Conduct (CoC) of the Canadian Armed Forces. There is no allegation, (as far as I am aware) that this activity violated the Criminal Code of eCanada. Just as the criminal courts would not go after a player for icing the puck, or tripping a player, even though there was act of illegality, so the a violation of the CoC is strictly an internal matter. Because it was the CAF which set up the CoC (and not imposed upon from without, but set up internally) the violation of it is strictly an internal matter. If there was a corresponding section in the Criminal Code of eCanada which the LTR violated, then there would be grounds for further public and/or congressional investigation. How the CAF choose to respond to the violation of the CoC is up to the CAF. Of course, a poor response (or no response at all) would hold the CoC in contempt - but that is again, an internal matter, as it was imposed internally. No act of congress, nor an executive government decision, put this CoC in place (insofar as I can tell).

Even IF the allegations that those who passed judgment and imposed penalities are true, that they were somehow complicit in the LSR (at one level or another), that is an internal matter. It is argued on the moral ground that there would be much to be desired if this is true, and I would have to concur. However, there is nothing legally wrong about it. Those who were supposed to judge violations of the CoC did so, passed judgement, and handed out internal sentences.

The LSR violated only the CoC, and no other law or article, to my knowledge. And as such, the call for documents to be released and information shared cannot be done upon legal grounds - though there may or may not be moral grounds to do so. Self-policing in the LSR incident was legally, entirely sufficient.