A Balancing Act: Unique Considerations for Tackling Sexual Misconduct in the Army Primary Reserves
by Bibi Imre-Millei, Wesley Nicol, Benn Fisher
This blog post is the second about sexual misconduct in the Reserves. The first, from 2021, can be viewed here.
When reports of sexual misconduct at the highest levels of the CAF emerged in 2021, leadership at some army reserve units across Ontario began having meaningful, frank, and supportive conversations with their units; others did not.
As the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) continued to roll out updated versions of Operation HONOUR amid COVID-19 in early 2020, our team at the CIDP’s Gender Lab began interviewing Army Primary Reservists in Ontario. As the CAF began to grapple with a third major sexual misconduct crisis in as many decades during 2021, we were applying for additional funding to expand our study. By mid-2022, as the Conversation on Defence Ethics (CODE) training began to roll out and the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the CAF (the Arbour Report) was released, we had conducted 79 in-depth interviews with Primary Reservists in Ontario.
At some units, participants noted zero tolerance of sexual misconduct, a supportive environment, and good leadership; others noted hostility, dismissal, or a lack of engagement from leadership. Sometimes these conflicting reports were coming from within the same unit. Though dissatisfied with the leadership approach, one participant noted: “I’m willing to just kind of move past it in order to do something that I love.” This is the balancing act that many of the Reservists we interviewed from underrepresented groups in the CAF engaged in; a balance between a job they love and an environment which does not welcome them. Such a balancing act will ultimately impact recruitment and retention as it has in past generations.
Even when they recounted instances of sexual misconduct, participants often felt their unit was better than others. Some participants viewed sexual misconduct as a mistake or a consequence of immaturity. These participants often believed that further as people got older and received more education they were less likely to perpetrate sexual misconduct. Participants from more technically inclined units with higher levels of undergraduate and graduate education tended to view the infantry or combat arms as the problem due to a perceived lack of education, despite the lack of data to support this. Many participants claimed that they (and their educated peers) as university students could not be perpetrators, despite the high incidence of sexual violence on college campuses across Canada.
Particularly troubling were examples of sexual misconduct explained away as “trivial” by participants. The idea of triviality was sometimes used to gauge whether reporting an incident was “worth it.” While this may seem unacceptable, participants delivered nuanced takes on the trade-offs between reporting and addressing sexual misconduct through other means. Men often noted that they would confront perpetrators of “trivial” misconduct themselves and give them an opportunity to change their behaviour. In contrast, women noted that reporting such “trivial” instances of sexual misconduct could lead to repercussions for their careers and social lives. Men often did not understand what would occur after a report and did not make the same calculus as women did: that intense questioning, the spread of rumours, and the potential anger of the perpetrator and their friends may not be “worth” the good a report may do, even in a best-case scenario. Women often carried shame about decisions not to report. However, some men noted that they might not report instances of sexual misconduct where extreme violence was involved for fear of embarrassment, shame, and being seen as less of a man by other unit members.
In the situations described above, most men noted they had never experienced sexual misconduct and discussed hypothetical reporting of misconduct perpetrated on others. When pushed, they often claimed they would behave the same for misconduct perpetuated against them. Women were more likely to speak from experience, as almost all women noted some form of sexual misconduct had been perpetrated against them. These experiential differences between men and women likely had an impact on how both groups thought about what they would do in situations of sexual misconduct.
No matter how brief, any instance of unwanted touching is sexual assault and has no place for an organization with a zero-tolerance policy. Perceptions of triviality need to be addressed to further break down barriers and stigma around reporting. However, our findings point to the reality that we must move past the idea that reporting is the be-all and end-all. Our participants often believed they had a binary choice when faced with an incident of sexual misconduct: report to the chain of command or stay silent.
The binary between engaging with the chain of command and staying silent obscures several choices. Many participants were not aware of how the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (SMRC) could support them, that they could go to civilian authorities, that they could bypass the chain of command, or that they could access civilian resources. Most participants noted that a chaplain or padre could assist someone who did not know what to do after learning of or experiencing an instance of sexual misconduct. Some also noted that their units engaged in the SENTINEL program (a peer support program set up by the chaplaincy). Chaplaincy supports continue to be seen as important by CAF members, but several issues, including lack of diversity in chaplaincy and the inherent issue that not all will be comfortable with accessing supports with a religious element. These groups include atheists and those belonging to minority religions, some 2SLGBTQIA individuals and those with religious trauma who may have had past negative experiences, including religious ex-communication, homophobia and transphobia from religious organizations.
Moving away from reporting towards support and healing means a continued, clear emphasis on unacceptable behaviour, and the presentation of multiple resources, supports and reporting options. Much of this can be done through training. Recommendations 12 to 18 of the Arbour Report are particularly salient based on our participants’ experiences. These recommendations deal with the role of the SMRC and the Chief Professional Conduct and Culture (CPCC). Participants felt that training over the years on sexual misconduct, such as Operation HONOUR, was a tick-in-the-box at best and was at worst actively mocked by leadership. Discussions around sexual misconduct that participants felt most engaged with were often based on opportunities outside official materials such as Operation HONOUR and CODE.
Participants often noted that the people are delivering Operation HONOUR and CODE materials framed sexual misconduct prevention as a women’s issue (with no mention of men who have experienced sexual misconduct or issues of 2SLGBTQIA+ harassment). This mindset fuels entrenched gender-based stereotypes and disengagement from participating men. Notably, because men are the majority in the CAF, there are more cases of sexual misconduct perpetrated against men when looking at sheer numbers. However, women continue to be disproportionally affected, as demonstrated by the Statistics Canada reports on sexual misconduct in the CAF and the Heyder and Beattie Lawsuits.
Many men participants felt like sexual misconduct training was not relevant to them and even displayed denialism. Participants often expressed that although they believed sexual misconduct to be a problem in the CAF, they didn’t believe it was an issue in their unit because they had not seen it or experienced it personally. The participants that expressed this view were primarily white, heterosexual, and cisgender men. As part of training or sexual misconduct conversations, it is essential to underscore the barriers to victims and survivors coming forward and that these incidents are rarely “advertised” to the unit. Not seeing sexual misconduct doesn’t mean it is not happening. Further, it is vital that those receiving SENTINEL training or other training or positions that make disclosures from peers also receive positive space training to understand how to provide peer support to 2SLGBTQIA+ service members.
Participants viewed CODE more favourably because training was designed to be more interactive, as compared to online training and Operation HONOUR briefs. These unit-level group discussions, prompted by CODE protocols, were viewed as effective and more relatable, though not without fault. Hearing from the members of your unit through a mediated forum is a powerful avenue for culture change and the socialization of good practices. Trauma-informed teaching and learning should be at the core of this approach, with an annual adaptation of the materials to stay current, relevant, and innovative. Keeping the material fresh will keep the participants interested and engaged. While some participants thought the conversations were thought-provoking and interesting, others thought scenarios were too simple and felt the tick-the-box nature of training continued. It seems reactions to CODE are heavily dependent on implementation, and those with unit leadership committed to tackling sexual misconduct were more likely to consider CODE more favourably.
We did not have access to the CODE training itself until well after our interviews. Once we did have access, we identified many issues with this training, including a lack of emphasis on how to support victims/survivors/those with grievances, and a focus on bureaucratic compliance over ethical discussion. Training is also not iterative and buildable and is only required to be completed once. We also found some unacceptable framing in scenarios 2A and 2B that could be interpreted as homophobic and places 2SLGBTQIA+ service members in the unfortunate position of having to defend their existence and rights. We highly recommend reviewing the CODE training to better tailor the scenarios to reflect ethical dilemmas and to bring scenarios 2A and 2B in line with the Canadian and Ontario Human Rights Codes and the CAF directives for inclusive behaviour.
Bystander training, including meaningful and compassionate ways to engage with friends, peers, and unit members who have experienced sexual misconduct, could go a long way to building understanding. Further, participants felt training often continues to focus on framing men as aggressors instead of discussing how a sexualized workplace culture hurt everyone. More engagement with groups that already focus on preventing men from perpetrating sexual misconduct should be conducted rigorously and regularly. Some participants had received presentations from groups who were experts in sexual misconduct prevention outside the CAF, and all viewed these presentations favourably.
With multiple high-level reports on sexual misconduct, a number of statistical summaries from Statistics Canada, and public testimony of survivors in the media, those creating training have plenty of evidence and research to draw on to create actionable, accurate, and inclusive training so that reservists like our participants can understand which behaviour is unacceptable and why, and to help themselves and their peers if and when such behaviour occurs.
Note: The results discussed above are from a study on recruitment and retention in Canada’s Primary Reserve funded by a Mobilizing Insights in Defence and Security Targeted Engagement Grant. The project team consisted of principal investigator Dr. Stéfanie von Hlatky, project lead Bibi Imre-Millei, and research assistants Wesley Nicol and Benn Fisher, who conducted the project at the Centre for International and Defence Policy’s Gender Lab.
Bibi Imre-Millei is a political science Ph.D. student at Lund University in Sweden focusing on peace and conflict studies. Bibi is interested in gender analysis of militaries and the relationship between military technologies and their users. She has also researched diversity in militaries and women, peace, and security at both the Centre for International and Defence Policy and at McMaster University in the Trauma and Recovery Lab.
Wesley Nicol is a Ph.D. student at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs in Ottawa specializing in the Security, Intelligence, and Defence field. His research interests include Canada-China affairs, espionage, and clandestine foreign influence in Anglosphere or Five Eyes intelligence alliance countries. Wesley has been working for DND and researches sexual exploitation and abuse in United Nations peacekeeping operations.
Benjamin Fisher is a graduate student at the Queen’s University School of Policy Studies. Benn has been a research assistant at the Centre for International Defence Policy (CIDP) since the Spring of 2021, supporting the Canadian Defence and Security Network (CDSN) portfolio. He is also a Consultant at the Partnership for Counter Influence Operations at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
