Canadian Forces National Investigation Service – Page 4

Winners and Losers

“Bobbie, it looks like you’ve done it, it looks like you’re winning!”

Nope.

The one thing that I can assure you is that there will be no winners in this matter.

Everyone associated with this matter is a loser in the sense that they’ve lost.

40 years of enduring a lifetime of self doubt and self hatred and untreated mental illnesses doesn’t suddenly disappear the instant that the Government decides to consider offering compensation to the former child victims that were denied justice and proper medical attention all those years ago.

I along with most of the other childhood victims of Captain McRae and his teenage accomplice PS lost our childhoods and our innocence on Canadian Forces Base Namao.

Some of us lost our sanity and our identities when we were dealt with by the military social workers.

Some of us lost our families when the military’s attitude towards the victims of sexual assault was unleashed within the walls of the PMQs that we lived in on base.

Some of us lost our lives through suicide. Some of us are still yet to lose our lives through Medical Assistance in Dying.

We, the numerous victims of Captain McRae and his teenage accomplice, have all collectively lost our ability to ever receive justice in this matter due to nothing more than decisions made at National Defence Head Quarters in Ottawa.

Current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces, if they have any integrity, will have lost respect for the Canadian Armed Forces knowing that the Canadian Armed Forces actively and intentionally denied justice to victims of child sexual abuse.

Current and former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who became involved with this matter and carried out the desire by the Brass at National Defence Head Quarters to keep this matter hidden in the past have lost any claim of integrity that they once may have had.

Retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have enjoyed a retired life of accolades for a service well rendered have lost any respect they may have had over their involvement with the Captain Father Angus McRae child sexual abuse scandal in 1980.

Captain McRae’s accomplice, PS, has lost his designation as Captain McRae’s sole victim and has lost his ability to claim to have been an “innocent angel”.

The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service has lost any pretence of integrity that it may have had when it tried so desperately to portray the victims of Captain McRae and McRae’s teenage accomplice as”money grubbing” “societal malcontents with axes to grind against the military” contrary to the contents of documents already in the possession of the CFNIS during the time of the investigation.

The Provost Marshal lost any claim to impartiality that it had when it refused to release the 1980 CFSIU DS-120-10-80 investigation paperwork to the Military Police Complaints Commission in 2012 when I made my complaint against the CFNIS for a substandard investigation in 2011.

The Office of the Canadian Forces Ombudsman has lost any claim to relevance it had when it outright refused to conduct an inquiry into the handling of Child Sexual Abuse investigations by the Provost Marshal and the CFNIS while knowing full well that the CFNIS was found to be completely unable to conduct any manner of sexual assault investigation by two independent retired Supreme Court of Canada justices.

The Office of the Minister of National Defence has lost any claim to integrity that it may have once had when it allowed the personal opinions of the individual Ministers to cast doubt upon the veracity and integrity of the victims of military child sexual abuse.

Everybody is a loser in this matter.

Some have lost more than others.

Some will still lose even more.

Regardless, absolutely no one has won in this matter.

The Acts are stacked Against Us.

It’s hard enough in the civilian world for sexually abused children to obtain justice.

In the military world, it’s almost impossible.

In the civilian world, it’s almost impossible for a perpetrator or a perpetrator’s employer to have influence over the police, the prosecutor, or the judiciary.

In the military world, especially in the days of the pre-1998 National Defence Act, the perpetrator’s employer could have direct influence over the police, and the judiciary.

Because of the chain of command and the military hierarchy, it is completely possible for the chain of command to have undue and irresponsible influence over any investigation undertaken by the military police, the CFSIU, or the CFNIS.

This was an established fact that led to the crafting of Bill C-25 which made some very serious changes to the National Defence Act in 1998.

The National Defence Act both pre and post 1998 states that every person subject to the Code of Service Discipline shall obey the lawful commands of their superior.

So first, a superior isn’t limited to their immediate chain of command. A superior is anyone with a superior rank who has the authority to issue lawful commands

Lawful is an interesting word choice. Lawful does not equate with legal.

Lawful and legal are two completely different concepts.

Lawful just means that the superior has the authority to issue a command. Lawful does not ensure that this command is legal and that by following this lawful command the subordinate is not placing themselves in a position of violating the Criminal Code of Canada.

There have been many court martial tribunals both in Canada and in the United States in which it has been argued that it is unfair for a subordinate to be expected to disobey an illegal lawful command if the subordinate is not given access to a legal officer to review the lawful command to see if it is an illegal command.

According to the Military Police Complaints Commission in 2020, someone in 1980 made the decision to not call the RCMP in to deal with the babysitter because someone believed the babysitter to be only 12 or 13 years old in May of 1980.

The babysitter has been confirmed from various sources as having been born on June 20th, 1965. When the babysitter was interviewed in May of 1980 by the CFSIU he would have been 14 years and 10 months old.

This also proves that the CFNIS had the CFSIU investigation paperwork as early as March of 2011 as when master corporal Christian Cyr called me on May 3rd, 2011, he repeated this same “error”, that the babysitter was only 12 or 13 when he was caught buggering me.

The CFNIS in 2011 had no excuse for going with what the CFSIU investigation paperwork stated for the babysitter’s age as the CFNIS in 2011 had access to the babysitter’s Canadian Police Information Centre “CPIC” file which listed all of the dates of his charges and his convections. This CPIC file would have also clearly stated his Date of Birth D.O.B..

In 1980, the babysitter’s birthdate would have easily been obtainable from Guthrie School. Guthrie School was the school on base for children of military families and it was run by the Canadian Armed Forces as were all the other schools for children of military families on bases across Canada.

There is also another place where the babysitter’s date of birth would have been obtainable. Birth records of all military dependents are deposited into their serving parent service file.

So, someone with authority made the decision to not turn the babysitter over to the RCMP.

Why?

In the lead up to the Court Martial of Captain McRae the decision was made to move the entire court martial “In Camera”. This caused outrage in the media at the time. But I can promise you that the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence were not going to allow the Canadian public to learn that Captain McRae and his teenage accomplice had molested 25 children, if not more, on a secure defence establishment.

The Canadian Forces couldn’t do bugger all had the babysitter gone to Juvenile Court. And yes, the media were allowed to report on juvenile cases back then with the courts usually ordering the press not to divulge the juvenile’s name or anything that could potentially identify the juvenile. The Canadian Forces would have had to throw around a lot of weight to get a civilian juvenile court judge to throw a publication ban over the trial.

Also, under the juvenile delinquents act, the adult who contributed to the delinquency of a minor could be found guilty by summary conviction in the juvenile court system. This would have meant that the Canadian Forces throwing a “veil of secrecy” over Captain McRae’s military court martial could have been all for naught as his exploits would have been made public by juvenile court.

The Somalia Report and supporting documents indicated that back in the pre-1998 days, Base Commanders could often interfere with investigations due to their rank and due to the fact that the military police were contained within the local chain of command.

My father, and just about everyone else on that base were subordinate to Colonel Munro.

Now, one thing that you’ll hear in the modern day is how when the military police or the CFNIS want to lay charges related to Criminal Code offences, they need to get the approval of a Crown Prosecutor.

This is not how it worked prior to 1998.

Prior to 1998, it was the military police or the CFSIU that laid charges.

The military police or the CFSIU were then required to present these charges to the commanding officer of the accused.

In the case of Captain Father Angus McRae the Canadian Forces have confirmed that Colonel Daniel Edward Munro, base commander of CFB Namao, was Captain McRae’s direct superior.

Colonel Munro would have then been required to conduct a summary investigation to determine if the charges brought against Captain McRae would proceed to summary trial, military tribunal, or civilian tribunal. Colonel Munro would have also had the full authority to drop these charges if he so desired. Or Colonel Munro could drop some charges while allowing other charges to proceed.

And once dropped, these charges or similar charges arising out of the same facts could never be brought against Captain McRae again at a later date.

As the Somalia Inquiry found, these commanding officers had no legal training and were not peace officers, but had the full authority under the National Defence Act to dismiss charges that they wouldn’t have even had the authority to conduct a summary trial for.

The three year time bar is another hurdle. Recently I was told by a CFNIS investigator who had investigated “the man in the sauna” that if the CFNIS ever discover the identity of the “man in the sauna” that the babysitter provided me to for the purposes of oral sex, the CFNIS will be able to prosecute this man in civilian court.

That’s not true though.

Just as the man in the sauna would have to be charged with Criminal Code offences as they were in 1980. The man from the sauna would also enjoy all of the legal protections that he had back in 1980.

Captain McRae was given a court martial for Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, and Buggery.

These charges were reviewed by his commanding officer, Colonel Dan Munro.

Even though I would have been to young at age 8 to have been able to consent to the oral sex I performed on the man, and even though the Supreme Court of Canada, as discussed in Corporal Donal Joseph Sullivan vs. Regina, stated that the military could only conduct a court martial if the victim was over the age of 14 when consent was a possibility, the fact of the matter is the military police or the CFSIU would have had to submit the findings of their investigation to the Commanding Officer of the accused.

In 1998 when Bill C-25 removed the requirement for commanding officers to conduct summary investigations AFTER the military police or the CFSIU laid charges against the commanding officer’s subordinate, that’s all it did. Bill C-25 simply removed the requirement for a summary investigation. It did nothing to retro-actively remove this requirement.

And this poses a very significant problem. The command structure as it existed in 1980 no longer exists.

Persons who were subject to the Code of Service discipline at the time of the offence remain liable to be charged with Code of Service Discipline offences committed during their service even after they leave the military.

If the man in the sauna is discovered tomorrow, how will the military charge him? Nothing prevents the CFNIS or the base military police from conducting investigations into child sexual abuse matters. But who is going to approve charges brought against the former member?

Prior to 1998 the military police or the CFSIU didn’t take Code of Service Discipline charges to the Provincial Crowns for approval. These charges flowed to the commanding officer. After 1998 charges can go two ways. One is to the Military Prosecutor that didn’t exist prior to 1998. The other is to the Provincial Crown.

But you can’t apply this to Code of Service Discipline charges prior to 1998. Sure, you hear stories all the time of cases in civilian court where a civilian teacher, or a civilian priest from 1956 or 1966 gets sentenced to jail for sexual abuse of children. But these people are civilians. Civilians were never subject to the Code of Service Discipline, nor were their employers / supervisors required to approve charges brought against their employee.

Another issue that prevents the laying of charges for offences that occurred prior to 1998 is the 3-year-time-bar.

Even if the CFNIS do manage to figure out who the man in the sauna was that I gave a blow job to when I was 8 years old, more than three years have elapsed.

Section 59(2) of the 1970 National Defence Act states ” no person is liable to be tried by a service tribunal unless his trial begins before the expiration of a period of 3 years from the day upon which the service offence was alleged to have been convinced.

Section 120(1) of the 1970 National Defence Act enumerated ALL criminal code offences as service offences.

Section 120(2) allowed the Canadian Forces to apply minimum penalties based upon what the Criminal Code of Canada would call for.

Section 134(a) allows any military police officer to arrest anyone subject to the Code of Service Discipline WITHOUT WARRANT who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline who has committed, is found committing, is suspected of being about to commit, or is suspected of or charged with having committed a service offence.

Section 140 of the 1970 National Defence Act calls for a Commanding Officer to conduct a summary investigation AFTER the laying of charges. The Commanding officer shall either cause the charge to proceed, or shall dismiss the charges.

Section 140 would have to be undertaken before the charges could proceed to Summary Trial, Court Martial, or Civilian Tribunal.

So, here’s the problem for the modern day prosecution of child sexual abuse which occurred on Canadian Armed Forces bases prior to 1998.

The military police in 1980, had they arrested the man in the sauna would have laid charges against him.

The military police would have been required to present these charges to the commanding officer of the accused.

Now, even though the commanding officer of the accused would not have been able to conduct a summary trial for the charges related to sexual offences committed against a child under the age of consent, and even though a court martial would have been precluded for trying these charges, nothing would have stopped the commanding officer from dismissing these charges and replacing them with charges that the commanding officer or a court martial could conduct a trial for.

And I think this is what keeps the Canadian Forces from successfully prosecuting for historical child sexual abuse which occurred prior to 1998.

This would be one hell of a massive Charter Challenge by the accused.

If the accused had been arrested back in 1980 and charged with receiving oral sex from me, under the National Defence Act he had the legal right to make a plea to his commanding officer.

That avenue does not exist today.

So even though the law allows for the man in the sauna to be charged in the modern day with 1980 criminal code offences that he committed back in May to June of 1980 he wouldn’t be allowed to enjoy the legal protections that the National Defence Act would have allowed him to enjoy back in 1980.

And I can’t help but wonder if this is why you don’t hear of any modern day military or civilian tribunals for service offences which occurred prior to 1998.

I would imagine that anyone who committed a service offence prior to 1998, and is charged in the modern day with having committed that service offence prior to 1998, would simply raise the argument in court that it is unfair to try them by modern laws and practices when the laws and practices at the time of the offence would have allowed them to plead with their commanding officer for leniency or forgiveness, which the commanding officer had the full authority to offer.

January 11th, 2023 thoughts

I wish that I was a better writer. I feel that if I was a better writer that I could get my points and ideas across better. But c’est le vie

I often find myself wondering what I would ever say to Captain Terry Totzke if I were to meet him face to face. Would I be able to say anything? Or would I be so choked up with frustration that I wouldn’t be able to say anything?

Would my anxiety get the best of me? Would I fear him all over again like I did back in 1980 through 1983.

Would I be able to ask him why he blamed me, or would Richard’s yelling and screaming in my head just tell me to shut up and admit that I knew that I was at fault for the events of 1978 to 1980?

In 1978 through 1980 I had no idea who Colonel Daniel Edward Munro was. But if I met him today would I have the courage to ask him if it was his own decision to dismiss the majority of charges against Captain McRae or if he received orders from Western Command or even NDHQ in Ottawa. Was it his decision to not bring in the RCMP to deal with the babysitter, or was he just following the orders issued by someone else?

Or would I even have the courage to say anything? Would I just stare dumbfounded, or would my feelings of worthlessness take over and convince me that asking him anything was wrong.

My father is dead. But even if he was alive I think I would know deep down inside that anything he said was an absolute lie and that it wouldn’t be believable under any circumstance.

So far I haven’t heard any word on the government’s plan to ask the Senate to delay the deadline for the implementation of Medical Assistance in Dying for reasons of Mental Health, so at this point in time I am still proceeding as if March 17th, 2023 is still the implementation date for M.A.i.D. for mental health issues.

I have two tattoo sessions in the meantime.

You might ask “if you want to die, why are you getting tattoos?”

It’s hard to explain, but I like how the tattoos cover my body. I love the way they look. I enjoy how they fill up the otherwise unremarkable and blank spaces. I enjoy the pain of getting the tattoos. Endorphin rush or adrenaline rush, whatever it is enjoyable. Truth be told, most tattoos I sleep or nap through.

Hopefully I can have every part of my body covered before I die.

I’ve done one eye orbit, the next appointment will be for the other eye orbit. After that, I think I have everything on my face covered. I don’t think that I can fit anything else on my face.

After that will be my thighs. And then my biceps. I’ll just go with bands like I have on my forearms and my thighs.

And then my trunk will be the final part. Still working out what to do there.

Anyways, enough for now.

I have a couple of videos to post that I’ll try to get online for tonight.

January 7th, 2023

Here’s my latest video.

January 2nd 2023

One of the hard things about putting these videos together is I’m so fucking numb to what happened, how it was dealt with or more importantly how it wasn’t dealt with that it no longer really means anything to me.

But still I need to talk about it because this was such a major part of my life during my formative years and it had such a profound impact on who I am.

This isn’t a track and field meet that I lost. This isn’t a goal that I didn’t score in an overtime period in junior hockey. This shit destroyed my world.

Anyways, I’ll have a new video by tomorrow, I’ve had a couple of things swimming around inside of my skull.

‘Til next time.

The Three Year Time Bar

Another hideous flaw in the pre-1998 National Defence Act

In 1998, another flaw was removed from the National Defence Act.

This flaw in a way was even more hideous than the Summary Investigation that I talked about in a previous blog entry.

The problem with the 3-year-time-bar is that it prohibited the laying of charges more than 3 years after the date of the alleged Service Offence.

You’ll remember from the previous post that the National Defence Act enumerates Criminal Code offences as Service Offences. As such crimes such as Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, and Buggery were service offences that could be tried by Service Tribunal. This is why Captain McRae was tried in a military court martial for committing “Acts of Homosexuality” such as “Gross Indecency”, “Indecent Assault”, “Buggery” with boys under the age of 15 on Canada Forces Base Namao.

The interesting thing about this 3-year-time-bar is that it applies to ALL service offences prior to 1998.

Also, even if a member of the Canadian Armed Forces is currently retired and no longer subject to the Code of Service Discipline, if the member was subject to the Code of Service discipline when they sexually abused a child on a military base they would still enjoy all of the rights that the National Defence Act bestowed upon the service member at the time of the offence.

What this means is that even if the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service were to find the man from the sauna who Peter provided me to for the purposes of oral sex this man could never be charged if he was a member of the Canadian Forces regular force in 1980.

If this man by some small miracle is a civilian with no connection to the Canadian Armed Forces and was never subject to the Code of Service Discipline, then he could be charged under the criminal code.

Don’t believe me?

In 2017, in a telephone call with Sergeant Damon Tenaschuk of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service Pacific Region, I asked Mr. Tenaschuk if he could try to talk to Colonel Dan Munro. I thought that this would be a simple matter seeing as how Sgt. Tenaschuk was on CFB Esquimalt just outside of Victoria, BC and Daniel Edward Munro lived in a suburb of Victoria, BC.

Instead, I received the following email from Sgt. Tenaschuk:

So there you have it.

The three year time bar is real, and it affects all Service Offence and all Criminal Code matters that occurred prior to 1998.

All I had asked for was for Sgt. Tenaschuk to talk to Daniel Edward Munro to see if Daniel had improperly bent the rules when he preferred the charges that Captain McRae faced in court martial and dismissed the other charges.

For Tenaschuk’s legal officer to say right of the bat that the 3-year-time-bar would prevent the laying of charges makes me wonder how many Canadian Forces personnel got away with Service Offences / Criminal Code offences prior to 1998.

Anyone who was subject to the Code of Service Discipline prior to 1998, and who sexually abused a child on a defence establishment, will NEVER face their accuser in court. Their victim will NEVER receive justice.

And this suits the Minister of National Defence and the Chief of Defence staff just fine. As it stands right now, you don’t hear anything about children being sexually abused on military bases by military personnel from the pre-1998 days. And as it turns out this isn’t because no child was ever sexually abused on base. It’s because if these kids didn’t report their crimes within the period of three years they would never be able to report their crimes..

In 2010, charges were brought against retired Brigadier General Roger Bazin. He was accused of sexually abusing a child on Canadian Forces Base Borden in the early 1970s. The matter made it so far as court, and then suddenly everything was dropped. No explanation was ever made to the media as to why the charges were dropped. You’d think that if the Crown has just smeared someone’s name through the media that they’d be obligated to explain to the public why the charges were dropped at the last minute.

No lawyer in the media claiming “my client has been vindicated”. Nothing. Radio Silence.

In my matter, Captain Father Angus McRae was alive until May 20th, 2011.

The investigation into my complaint started on March 5th, 2011.

The CFNIS knew about the connection between my babysitter, Peter, and Captain Angus McRae right from the get-go.

This means that the JAG, the Provost Marshal, and the CFNIS were aware at the start of the investigation that even if they were able to arrest Peter, that they’d never be able to charge Captain Father Angus McRae. This must have posed quite the dilemma for the Canadian Forces.

They had the CFSIU paperwork from 1980. They knew what Peter had been doing.

But they also knew that they would never be able to charge Angus McRae.

This would be quite the scandal, no?

When the CFNIS started the investigation in March of 2011, they couldn’t have possibly known that Captain McRae would have been about to die. They would have had to structure the investigation with the knowledge that Angus McRae was alive.

Anyways, here’s what Legislative Summary LS-311E had to say about the 3-year-time-bar-flaw.

These are the PDF pages of the images above.

Pages from Printable LS-311E Download

This is LS-311E (1998) in its entirety.

Printable LS-311E Download

Daniel, what did you do?

What did you do that the Judge Advocate General won’t allow an officer of the Canadian Forces Special Investigation Unit to talk to you about the events that occurred on your base from May of 1980 until July of 1980?

Can you actually sleep with this on your conscience?

Or do you rest well at night know that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence will cover your ass, not because you’re a great guy, but because if they uncover something unsavoury from Canadian Forces Base Namao that this will snowball into unsavoury events on many of the other Canadian Forces Bases where men such as yourself were able to hide things that had occurred on the bases that you were commanding.

How many kids did commanding officer bury on the bases?

Only time will tell.

This just keeps getting more and more interesting.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-sexual-assault-survivors-cases-closed-during-crisis-1.6274844

Interesting isn’t it.

This is exactly what the CFNIS and the MPCC told me in 2013.

P.S. didn’t want to speak to the investigators, so that was it – there was nothing the CFNIS could do.

And as my brother would say, you can’t force someone to talk to the police. If you talk to the police you only incriminate yourself. If the police had enough evidence they’d go to the Crown and get an arrest warrant.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-sexual-assault-survivors-cases-closed-during-crisis-1.6274844

One interesting thing that I did learn though is that if police have evidence to show that someone has committed similar offences in the same relative period of time the police can provide that evidence to the Crown in order to persuade the Crown to allow charges to be laid.

The Military Police Complaints Commission stated in the 2020 findings that the CFNIS had in their possession the CFSIU investigation paperwork from May and June of 1980 as well as the July 18th, 1980 CM62 court martial transcripts.

What did the CFSIU investigation and the CM62 court martial transcripts indicate?

They indicated the following:

P.S. had taken a group of young boys into the Horseshoe Forest, P.S. had the boys to drop their pants. P.S. then removed his erect penis from his pants, spit on his penis, and penetrated a 10 year old boy.
There were complaints from parents on the base about P.S.’s sexual behaviour with younger children. This is what initiated the investigation of Captain McRae.
P.S. was already receiving psychological treatment for his attraction to young children.
P.S. was arrested and convicted in 1982 for molesting a young boy in a town just north of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa where his father had been stationed. P.S. would have been either 16 or 17 depending if this occurred prior to June 20th or after June 20th.
P.S. was arrested and convicted in 1984 for molesting an eight year old boy in Manitoba in relation to an unnamed Canadian Forces Base there.
In the spring of 1985 P.S. was arrested and charged with molesting a 9 year old boy on Canadian Forces Base Edmonton, as a result of this P.S. was kicked off the base by the Canadian Armed Forces.
P.S.’s father rented P.S. in the west side of Edmonton. P.S. lured a 13 year old newspaper boy into his apartment and molested him on a few occasions.
In August of 1985 P.S. was convicted of molesting both the 9 year old and the 13 year old.

Why didn’t the CFNIS pass this information on to the Crown?

The fact of the matter is the chain of command above the CFNIS did not want charges brought against P.S. as this would only open up a festering wound that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence have kept a bandaid on for the last 40 years.

If the CFNIS had provided the Crown with enough evidence to indicate that P.S. was in fact KNOWN to have been molesting children and if the Crown had approved charges against P.S. this would have exposed the Canadian Armed Forces to the fallout that would have resulted from the Canadian public learning the truth about what had transpired on CFB Namao from 1978 to 1980 and that the Canadian Forces had sacrificed the lives of numerous children/adults in favour of keeping a hideous secret out of the public eye.

Instead, in my matter the CFNIS just threw their hands up and said that P.S. didn’t want to talk to them so there was little they could do.

That’s what you call “bullshit”.

Beyond a doubt the CFNIS knew what P.S. had been up to. The CFNIS had all of the paperwork and they had his criminal record.

The CFNIS had two options.

(a) The CFNIS could have gone to the Crown with all of the evidence to show that P.S. wasn’t suspected of molesting children, P.S. was a confirmed child molester. The CFNIS could have then arrested him, brought him in to talk, and at least got the truth about what had happened back then even if it resulted in nothing more than symbolic charges.

-or-

(b) The CFNIS could have approached the case in a totally different manner. The CFNIS could have approached P.S. as a victim of Captain McRae whom was obviously molesting children as a direct result of Captain McRae’s grooming, instructions, and directions.

The problem with either option (a) or option (b) is that they exposed the office of the Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces to multiple civil actions which would have none the less resulted in very negative media coverage.

This is why the CFNIS were not allowed to bring any type of charge or even to treat P.S. like a witness. The Chain of Command made the decision and their subordinates did as they were told. The past was going to stay in the past where it had been buried in 1980.

I can fully see the CFNIS still doing this. And remember, it’s not that the investigators are in on this duplicity. The order only has to be given to senior officers within the Provost Marshal or the CFNIS chain of command. Once the investigation has been shaped by the chain of command, the investigators never have a chance no matter how good their intentions are.

I think tis is one reason why various CFNIS investigators, “the good ones” made sure to share pertinent Information with me and made sure that I knew what documents to request via FOI and ATI requests.

And talking about moving cases out in to the civilian world, the CFNIS are in the process of handing their investigation of my complaint related to the man in the sauna.

This is in relation to the investigation looking at the man in the sauna that P.S. provided me to for the purpose of providing oral sex to the man.

I have a very good idea of who the man in the sauna was / is.

In the spring of 1980 a very specific major was sent from Ottawa to Canadian Forces Base Edmonton to assist Captain McRae with his affairs during the investigation and subsequent court martial.

This major was involved with the Canadian Forces Chaplaincy branch.

In the spring of 1980 I would have been 8 years old.

This would have been in the period of time between me having been caught being buggered by P.S. in the bedroom of his family’s PMQ and the house fire at his PMQ on June 23rd, 1980.

I had been swimming at the base pool. I was about to get changed when P.S. came over to me and coerced me to go to the sauna.

In the sauna was a man sitting in the far side. The man asked P.S. if I was really as good as P.S. said that I was. The man opened his towel and held his erect penis and motioned me to come over.

If I had to hazard a guess I would say that I had performed oral sex on P.S. at least two dozen times from the fall of 1978 until the spring of 1980. And this isn’t including the older boys that P.S would often hang out with.

So I put the man’s penis in my mouth and I played with his balls.

He stopped me just before he ejaculated.

I never saw this man again.

Now, if this man is who I think it is he would have known about P.S. and the affinity that P.S. had for children. He would have known that P.S. was the reason Captain McRae was in trouble. Was he trying to “blackmail” P.S. by getting P.S. to do something as horrible as pimping out an eight year old?

Or, seeing as how this man was a member of the Catholic church just as his subordinate Captain McRae was, did he have a thing for young children. If he knew the details of what P.S. and Captain McRae had been doing on the base, then he would have known that P.S. had been bringing children over to the rectory for Captain McRae and P.S. to molest. So maybe he knew that P.S. could supply him with fresh young meat.

And it’s not like the man I have accused is squeaky clean. This man has had his own troubles with the sexual molestation of children over the years.

Anyways, it remains to be seen how badly the CFNIS screwed up this investigation.

And you wonder why I am seriously considering medical assistance in dying in March of 2023 when it becomes legal for psychiatric issues. There’s only so much shit that one person can keep locked inside their skulls before it all becomes toxic. And no, seeking MAiD does not make me weak. Others who have been involved with the Captain Father Angus McRae have attempted suicide, have committed suicide, and have had mental health issues that have plagued them for their lives. And to have the Canadian Armed Forces do everything in their power to deny us our freedom from the torment associated with the events from CFB Namao is beyond the pale.

And here’s hoping that the media will pay attention to military dependents who were sexually abused on defence establishments by persons who were subjected to the Code of Service Discipline. We are stuck in a world of grey between the civilian justice system and the military justice system, between the provinces and between Ottawa.

If you’re keeping tally, I’ve blown a major, more than likely been buggered by a captain while drunk on wine, pleasured my 14 year old babysitter on numerous occasions, blew an enlisted guy on CFB Griesbach. And this was all before I turned 11.

It’s no wonder I hate sex.

40%

And that’s just those who came forward.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8405606/canadian-forces-sexual-misconduct-class-action-claims-men/

Well, here’s something that might come as a surprise to some people, but it doesn’t come as a surprise to me.

There were about 19,000 claims submitted for compensation.

If 40% of claimants were men that’s 7,600 men. And trust me men, especially in a military environment, are NOT going to be all that willing to come forward out of fear that others will judge them as being weak or of being a homosexual.

https://aasas.ca/support-and-information/men-and-sexual-assault/

And if one sexual abuser in the Canadian Armed Forces had five or six victims that 7,600 sexually abused men could quickly become 45,600 men. And I don’t really want to think about the total number of men that were sexually abused by other men in the Canadian Armed Forces. According to some stats, over 90% of sexual assault victims never report their assaults.

I’ve known about this since 2014 when L’Actualite ran an exposé on sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces. Part of this exposé looked at male-on-male sexual assault within the Canadian Armed Forces. This exposé was stripped from the English version of this article that ran in Maclean’s magazine.

This story was only featured in the French newsmagazine L’Actualite in Quebec. This story did not survive the translation into English for the Maclean’s English version of the exact same story.

Basically, it was found that male-on-male sexual abuse in the Canadian Armed Forces had nothing to do with “homosexual” relationships. The article found that male-on-male sexual abuse was more about exerting dominance and punishing others for perceived bad behaviour.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8360601/canadian-veteran-military-sexual-assaults-misconduct/

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2021/04/24/i-was-going-to-get-raped-former-soldier-speaks-out-about-his-being-sexually-assaulted-in-canadas-military.html

Male-on-male sexual abuse was frequently used to shame other members into compliance or to humiliate members that had “caused trouble” or used to blackmail a member into silence least his coworkers, friends, and family discover that he had participated in anal intercourse.

And I have absolutely no doubt that many male children living on the bases were subjected to this “discipline” in the household.

If a member of the Canadian Armed Forces is willing to force anal intercourse on a fellow adult member or if a member of the Canadian Forces is willing to force another adult member to perform fellatio on him in order to teach the other member a lesson or to change the other member’s non-conforming behaviour, you can bet that this type of behaviour found its way back into the PMQs on base.

Here’s a story from the New York Times that deals with male-on-male sexual abuse in the US mIlitary. There are numerous similarities between the US Military and the Canadian Forces.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/10/us/men-military-sexual-assault.html

Almost every type of discipline these men were taught would find its way back into the homes on base.

Once you engage in the military life, it’s almost impossible to separate and segregate the military life, the military training, and the military discipline from the home life.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are many a male military dependent that have some rather fucked up hazy memories from way back then. After all, it’s not like these male members were engaging in routine homosexual activities. They would just use male-on-male as a disciplinary tool.

It might have happened once.

It might have happened twice.

But I would be more than willing to believe that if it happened once or twice, that this would have been buried in the dark recesses of one’s mind.

Especially if it happened on a military base.

Who are you going to tell?

Who is going to believe you?

Are you really going to risk having your serving parent booted from the military?

Are you really going to endure the wrath of your serving parent if they found out that you tried to rat them out to the military police?

Sure does raise some interesting questions, doesn’t it?

Maybe this is one of the reason why the Canadian Armed Forces refuse to investigate historical child sexual abuse.

Maybe this is one of the reasons that some former serving parents are always telling their kids to forget about the past and to let sleeping dogs lie. Even if the serving parent in question didn’t abuse their own kids, were they aware of other service members that abused their own kids? Hard to keep secrets during an investigation, isn’t it?
Might be best to just deny anything and everything, right?