Hateful Conduct: Redefining Institutional Culture
By George Gies, Simon Fraser University
Take a moment, step back from mainstream media and let your mind go blank. Good, now what is the first thing that pops into your head when I say the term hateful conduct? Perhaps some thoughts are more specific, such as the terms neo-Nazi, White Supremacy, or the Alt-Right. The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), a trusted public institution has faced significant social issues that strike at the core of the intersectional identities that forms the rank and file of today’s military. As we cross the one-year anniversary of the Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5019–0, Conduct and Performance Deficiencies, or commonly referred to as the hateful conduct directive, that was implemented on 10 July, 2020, we ask ourselves; has this policy met its mark?
Hateful Conduct, since its inception, was a response to the growing concerns regarding the infiltration of right-wing extremism in the CAF. This was following several high-profile incidents involving members linked to violent acts and the potential threat of terrorism. Some contend that many military policies fail to acknowledge connections between the various forms of misconduct that erode institutional culture. Is this perhaps indicative of a poor understanding on how best to implement the directive, or a failure to appreciate the root cause?
In today’s climate of cancel culture, we are seeing elements of hate, persecution, anguish, and victimization that are exerting social pressures on the government as a whole. Creating an environment where we are quick to judge and slow to question the merits of the allegation and the actions taken. The polarization of key social issues within all forms of media has truly highlighted the significant ignorance or lack of understanding by the different segments of society. This perfect storm of cancel culture and the polarization of many social issues have fostered a rapidly growing impatience with the bureaucracy of change.
Although the hateful conduct directive has been touted as a new policy, it would be best described as a modernization of existing directives found within the CAF. The Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) related to hateful conduct was described as a foundational order and directive to address systemic racism and discrimination within the CAF which builds on existing policy instruments. DAOD 5019–0 Conduct and Performance Deficiencies essentially outlines the various administrative and disciplinary measures available to CAF leadership in addressing the broad spectrum of conduct deficiencies. One only has to look to the Canadian Army Order 11–82 entitled Hateful Conduct to appreciate the long list of references and directives that guide what actions could be applied or leveraged to ensure proper conduct and discipline is enforced.
The hateful conduct policy is quite inclusive to all forms of discrimination and misconduct and acts as a procedural multiplier. It has been argued that CAF leadership was not effectively educating themselves with the relevant laws and policies to ensure proper conduct and discipline. After all, this policy did require a solid injection of academic rigour to modernize key definitions and language to further enable the application of existing administrative and disciplinary measures. The former Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19–43 on racism allows us to appreciate how far the CAF has come. But in all fairness, there are even times when the Canadian Justice system cannot effectively come to a single definition of what constitutes a hate crime. The burden of proof is quite high, in that one must prove that the act was willful and intentional. This can be difficult as some extremist viewpoints are often crafted to resonate with a larger audience, targeting sympathizers of highly charged social issues despite a distinct difference within their core beliefs. What proves challenging to military leadership is being able to decipher what is a hate-motivated event and what is a culturally insensitive act or microaggression.
Methods of determining the severity or motivation of hateful conduct is contingent on context. The use of inappropriate humour, dehumanizing language, and the formulation of bias built on personal experiences can sometimes be unintentional, rooted in stereotypes or conceal cultural insensitivities. For example, satire is the use of humour, irony, exaggeration or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s behaviour or vices particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. There are three types of satire, Horatin is generally comical and offers light social commentary, while Juvenalian tends to target hot button issues and is used to speak to truth and power. The third and most consistent with hateful conduct is Menippean, which casts moral judgment on a particular belief. It is the latter two types that often require additional context to formulate the grounds to believe a hateful act was committed and opens the debate for freedom of expression.
Often the freedom of expression within section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is cited as a defence; however, the method of expression is not afforded protections if it takes the form of a threat or act of violence. In the context of the Code of Service Discipline, the location and the method of expression is not necessarily afforded protections should it contravene CAF policies or lawful direction. Although the Criminal Code of Canada outlines specific hate crimes, Sections 718.04 and 718.2 uses the principles of sentencing to address the severity of the offence. Often hateful conduct is characterized as a hate crime, but let’s not forget that foremost it was a criminal act that was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate. It is key to note that whether the actions taken are administrative or disciplinary, that the merits and the details of the case are fully reviewed, and an intersectional analysis is considered.
The CAF Policy on hateful conduct is a much-needed modernization of an existing policy that recognizes all forms of misconduct. The intent is not to diminish the seriousness of the hateful conduct; rather it is to recognize and examine the context and aggravating factors to truly understand the issue before selecting the best course of action. It serves as a reminder to CAF leadership of the various tools available to effectively address misconduct as they redefine our institutional culture.
George Gies is a graduate student with the Terrorism, Risk, and Security Studies programme at Simon Fraser University and currently as serving member of the Canadian National Investigative Service examining incidents of hateful conduct. The views expressed in this report are based upon his own independent research and do not reflect those of the Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence, or the Government of Canada.
