I’m growing to like Chat.
It does have some quirks though, for example if you ask it a legal question, it will default to answering the question based upon the more recent Acts, Codes, and Statutes. But, when you supply it with new information it is fairly quick at digesting the new information and then providing answers based upon the new data.
For instance, I recently asked chat if in 1980 the Canadian Armed Forces had the authority to prosecute sexual assaults committed against children.
Chat responded ꝥ the Canadian Armed Forces were in fact prohibited from prosecuting sexual assaults against children because Murder, Manslaughter, and Sexual Assault were offences ꝥ the Canadian Forces were specifically prohibited from prosecuting.
Seeing chat reply with “Sexual Assault” meant ꝥ chat was actually making the same mistake ꝥ lawyers and media types have made and ꝥ mistake is looking at the current National Defence Act as opposed to what was in place in 1980.
I uploaded the 1970 National Defence Act into chat and asked chat if this had any effect on the military’s ability to prosecute for sexual assaults
Again chat replied ꝥ the Canadian Armed Forces lacked the jurisdiction to prosecute sexual assaults against children because in 1980 the military was prohibited from prosecuting Murder, Manslaughter, and Rape.
Chat was again making the same mistake ꝥ people in the media, laypeople, and even lawyers and police officers make and this is believing ꝥ “rape” covered all sexual assaults. Rape hasn’t been a criminal code offence in Canada since 1984.
I uploaded a scanned copy of the 1970 Criminal Code.
I asked chat what if it had any concerns about section 146 of the 1970 Criminal Code of Canada.
I uploaded the 1970 National Defence Act into chat and then asked chat again if the Canadian Armed Forces could prosecute for sexual assaults committed against children.
What does it all mean?
What this means is ꝥ if you were a child living on a Canadian Armed Forces base prior to 1998, you are fucked seven ways from Sunday if you were sexually assaulted by a member of the Canadian Armed Forces while living on a Defence Establishment.
This is ¬ hyperbole.
This is fact.
Sure, the Canadian Armed Forces could ask Parliament to pass legislation ꝥ would retroactively remove the 3-year-time-bar, and nullify the effects of a commanding officer dismissing criminal code charges ꝥ had been laid against their subordinate.
But why would they?
Those of us who grew up on the bases in the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s are all moving into our senior years. I just turned 54 a few days ago. So we’re ¬ getting any younger.
All the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence have to do is sit back and let the clock run out for another 20 to 30 years. Maybe even less considering ꝥ most of our abusers will die before we do.
And besides, do you honestly think ꝥ the DND or the CAF would willingly hand over military police, CFSIU, and CFNIS paperwork to the outside civilian authorities?
When Master Corporal Christian Cyr informed me about Captain Father Angus McRae on May 3rd, 2011, he only did so because the CFNIS WR detachment had the 1980 military police investigation paperwork and the courts martial transcripts in hand. Do you honestly think ꝥ the CAF or the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal are going to make those documents available to the outside civilian police?
How many charges of manslaughter were improperly dismissed by commanding officers prior to November of 1997?
How many charges of murder were improperly dismissed by commanding officers prior to November of 1997?
How many charges of rape were improperly dismissed by commanding officers prior to November of 1997?
How many charges amounting to sexual assaults against children under the age of 16 were improperly dismissed by commanding officers prior to November of 1997?
Who knows?
And ꝥ suits the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence just fine.
Beeshive 