Modern psychiatry is not primarily about repairing damaged minds. In practice, it is far more often about teaching damaged people how to function quietly—how to mask distress, suppress history, and remain acceptable to everyone else. Recovery is measured less by relief from suffering than by how little discomfort one causes others.
If you’ve followed my story, you’ll know that my first sustained contact with psychiatry and social services came in 1980 during the aftermath of the Captain Father Angus McRae child sexual abuse scandal on Canadian Forces Base Namao.
Three Systems, One Child
During that period, I was trapped between three systems, each with competing priorities:
the military social work system,
the civilian child welfare system, and
a deeply dysfunctional family, headed by a low-ranking CAF member struggling with untreated psychiatric issues, alcoholism, anger, and fear for his own career.
My civilian social workers recognized that my home environment was harmful and attempted to remove me from it. My military social worker, however, worked just as hard to prevent that outcome—not because civilian foster care was inherently worse, but because civilian intervention threatened military control of the situation.
This distinction matters.
Because my family lived in military housing on CFB Griesbach, Alberta Social Services could not simply enter the base and remove me. Civilian court orders had little practical force on base. Jurisdictional ambiguity worked entirely in the military’s favour.
Containing the McRae Scandal
At the same time, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence were doing everything possible to keep the McRae scandal minimized and out of public view. The decision to move McRae’s court martial in camera—despite the general rule that courts martial are public—was not incidental.
From an institutional perspective, it was far more convenient to present the case as involving a single fourteen-year-old boy, the then-legal age of consent in 1980, framed as “homosexual activity,” than to acknowledge the reality: more than twenty-five children, some as young as four.
Under military law, sentences were served concurrently. Whether McRae abused one child or twenty-five, the maximum punishment remained the same. The difference lay only in public perception.
Blame as a Containment Strategy
This context explains much of what followed.
Captain Totzke, the military psychiatrist assigned to me, appeared deeply invested in ensuring that I—not the system, not the institution—was framed as the source of dysfunction. Civilian social workers were treated as adversaries. The unspoken fear was that if I were removed from my father’s care and placed into foster or residential care, I might stabilize, improve, and begin speaking openly about what had happened on CFB Namao.
Instead of being treated for trauma-induced depression, I was told—explicitly—that I suffered from a mental illness called “homosexuality.” I was warned that I would end up in jail. I was told I was a pervert for having “allowed” my brother to be abused.
I was informed by Captain Totzke that he had the military police watching me, and that any expression of affection toward another boy would result in confinement at a psychiatric hospital. I was barred from change rooms, removed from team sports, and excluded from normal childhood activities under the justification that I could not be trusted to control myself even though I had been the victim of the abuse and not the abuser. In the military’s lens at the time, any sexual encounter between two males, no matter the age difference or the lack of consent, was treated as an indication of homosexuality. The victim was just as guilty as the perpetrator.
Age and Diagnosis
I was six years old when my family arrived on CFB Namao. I was eight when the abuse was discovered. Psychiatric intervention began about four months later just after my 9th birthday. By that point I was diagnosed with major depression, severe anxiety, haphephobia, and an intense fear of men. My father was so angry with me for having been found being abused that I was terrified that he was going to kill me.
None of these conditions were meaningfully treated.
What I did learn was how to perform wellness—how to mask distress just well enough to avoid punishment. That skill would define my later interactions with mental health professionals and the world in general. When I’d go for counselling with my civilian social workers, my father and Totzke would often warn me to watch what I said to the civilian social workers as they’d “twist my words” to make it sound as if I had said things that I didn’t say.
The Mask Never Comes Off
For decades afterward, my attempts at counselling followed a familiar pattern. My history was unwelcome. My symptoms were reframed as resistance. The stock phrases appeared reliably:
“Stop living in the past.”
“Move on.”
“You don’t want to change.”
“You’re playing the victim.”
It was not until 2011, when I finally received my own records, that I understood how early—and how thoroughly—my life had been derailed.
Group therapy or one-on-one it didn’t matter. Especially back in the days before I had obtained my social services paperwork. My inability to get out of bed on consistently was just because I’d stay up too late. My ability to sleep for days on end and miss work was just because I was a lazy asshole. My preference to be left alone was nothing more than my superiority complex. My debilitating fear of courses and exams wasn’t due to low self esteem, hell no, it was that I thought that I was too good.
Medical Assistance in Dying
For a while now I have been very open about my desire to access Medical Assistance in Dying.
What continues to astonish me is how many people believe this wish can be dissolved through optimism, pharmacology, or spiritual novelty. Ketamine infusions, microdosing, mantras—anything except acknowledging that some damage is permanent, and that survival itself can be a form of ongoing harm.
Don’t forget, in my case it wasn’t that the sexual abuse was unknown and no one ever knew about the issues I was facing. The CFB Namao child sexual abuse scandal was well known about in the military community. My diagnoses were known to my father and to Captain Totzke. But I wasn’t allowed to receive any help due to the desire to keep the proverbial “lid on things”.
Statistics and Comforting Fictions
This is why much of the anti-MAiD commentary rings hollow.
Recent opinion pieces lean heavily on selective statistics about suicide attempts and “recovery,” while ignoring the realities of under-reporting, stigma, misclassification of deaths, and survivorship bias.
Suicide statistics rely on narrow definitions: notes, explicit intent, immediate death. Overdoses are coded as accidental. Single-vehicle crashes are ambiguous. Deaths occurring months or years after catastrophic attempts are often excluded entirely.
The result is a comforting fiction.
A failed suicide attempt is not a victory. Often, it is survival driven by fear—not of death, but of catastrophic impairment. That fear should not be celebrated as evidence of restored hope or desire to live.
What Psychiatry Refuses to Admit
If psychiatry were being honest, it would admit what it does not know: the precise causes of depression, why some people do not recover, why treatment sometimes merely dulls experience rather than alleviating suffering.
It would also acknowledge the role of compliance and performance—the pressure to appear “better” so as not to be labeled the problem.
Instead, responsibility is quietly transferred back onto the patient.
And that, more than anything, is what I am unwilling to accept anymore.
Recently in the Toronto Star was an opinion piece
M.A.i.D. really isn’t an issue that requires “both sidesing”, but that’s what this opinion piece strives to do. It tries to mush a person’s right to self determination with personal opinions. And sadly the writer of the opinion piece concludes that if Canada could only fix its mental health system, then everyone would live happily ever after
Dr. Maher is dead set against M.A.i.D., to him any psychiatric illness can be easily treated, and if it can’t then the person should simply hold on and wait for a treatment that might possibly eventually work.
Dr. Maher was interviewed for an article published by the Canadian Mental Health Association.
23% of what? What is the number of Canadians that attempt suicide? 10 people, 100 people, 1,000 people, 100,000 people? How many people are we talking about?
Do we even know how many people attempt to commit suicide every year?
How many overdoses or single vehicle collisions are actually suicides?
How many people killed during risk taking activities are actually suicides?
How many work place “accidents” are actually suicides?
How many times does the coroner resist calling a death a suicide to spare the family the stigma of a suicide death?
How many times does the lack of a note cause the police and others to overlook a suicide?
How many people attempt suicide only to back away at the last moment, not out of the fear of dying, but out of the fear of fucking it up and ending up living for 20 years as a vegetable in a nursing home?
How many people that have attempted suicide never try to commit suicide again, not because they don’t want to take another attempt, but because their first attempt left them either physically or cognitively unable to make another attempt?
I guess we’ll never know.
And that’s sad.
This lack of understanding allows suicide to be pawned off as some random irrational behaviour that is driven by temporary bouts of sadness that some people just get too hysterical about instead of admitting that the human brain has an actual breaking point that once crossed can never be uncrossed.
Back in 2014, when the Canadian media started getting interested in how the military justice system was handling sexual assaults, or more importantly, wasn’t handling sexual assaults, I had reached out to a few of the more prominent victims of military sexual abuse to see if they would be willing to mention to the media that children living on the bases were often swept up in the very same horrific justice system that they were caught up in.
Nope.
The general consensus was that they were not going to dilute the attention that they were receiving and they sure as fuck weren’t going to share their spotlight with others, especially not with the people with penises. People with penises can only rape women.
Remember, and this is even more so than it is in the civilian world, people who have penises can never be the victim of sexual assault. If you have a penis you can only be the instigator of sexual abuse. In the Canadian Armed Forces, no matter if you were a child or a male service member, if you had a penis you could only be a perpetrator, never a victim. And even if you weren’t a perpetrator at the least your abuse was because you were a homosexual and you desired it.
Another issue that these victims had was according to them the military justice system only looked after sexual assault cases involving military victims. The military justice system NEVER looked after children.
Okay, what about the courts martial against Captain Father Angus McRae in 1980?
What about the courts martial of Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan?
What about the numerous other cases of male child sexual abuse? If that’s one thing the military justice system is good at, it’s obfuscating criminal records. Until recently charges were only retained in the service member’s service file. There didn’t exist any central database in the military that tracked who had been charged with what. And records that did exist pre-1998 only track what a member pled to, not what they were originally charged with before the commanding officer dismissed or adjusted the charges that had been brought against their subordinate.
Durp…….. Durp…….
I’ll let ChatGPT talk for a bit.
hey chat, how common is the view in North America including Canada that boys cannot be the victims of sexual assault, that boys can only be the perpetrators of sexual assault, and boys that are sexually assaulted wanted it because they’re homosexuals?
Hi — that’s a really important and difficult question. The short answer is: yes — those views you describe do exist in parts of North America (U.S. and Canada), although “how common” is harder to pin down because there isn’t enough good data. What I can do is summarise where we see evidence for such attitudes — and also show how they’re wrong, from what research says.
✅ What the research says about male (and boy) sexual-assault victims
Men are certainly victims of sexual assault. According to a literature review on adult male sexual violence, many men report anal rape, attempted rape, or other forms of sexual assault. (PMC)
In Canada, law now treats sexual assault as a gender-neutral crime: male and female victims can both be recognized legally. (Ministère de la Justice)
Studies suggest that a large proportion of sexual assaults against men go unreported. (Canada)
Survivors (male and female) often experience similar trauma; male victims may also show involuntary physiological responses (e.g. erection) even when the assault is not consensual — and research underlines that such responses do not equal consent. (PMC)
So there is strong evidence that sexual assault affects men and boys; and scientifically and legally there is recognition of male victims.
⚠️ What societal myths and stereotypes studies identify — i.e. the attitudes you mentioned
Research documents several “rape myths” (false beliefs) that distort how people perceive sexual assault, especially when the victim is male: (roqhas.org)
Among the common myths:
“Men (or boys) can’t be sexually assaulted.” (aasas.ca)
“If a man shows signs of arousal (e.g. an erection) that means he consented / wanted it.” (PMC)
“Male sexual assault is less harmful/less serious than female sexual assault.” (rsvporg.co.uk)
“Only gay men are sexually assaulted, or gay men are more likely the victims.” (Canada)
“Male victims of sexual assault will almost always become perpetrators themselves.” (Canada)
These myths contribute to stigma, disbelief, under-reporting, and social marginalization for male victims. (Canada)
Also — because of societal norms around masculinity, men may be less likely to report abuse, or have difficulty acknowledging it, making the actual scope of male sexual assault harder to grasp. (depts.ttu.edu)
🎯 How widespread are such attitudes — any data?
This is where things get murky. A few key points:
The body of empirical research on male sexual victimization is much smaller than on female victimization. (PMC)
Because of under-reporting (due to shame, fear, disbelief), the prevalence of male sexual assault is likely underestimated. (roqhas.org)
Surveys/meta-analyses of attitudes toward sexual assault show that rape myths (including those affecting male victims) remain common. For instance, studies found that stronger adherence to traditional gender-role expectations correlates with more victim-blaming, lower perceived severity, and reduced empathy — especially in same-gender assault cases. (ResearchGate)
Organizations working in the field (e.g. in Canada) still name as “common misconceptions”: “men can’t be sexually assaulted,” “male victims don’t suffer as much,” “only gay men are victims,” etc. (Canada)
So while we don’t have precise percentages for how many people hold those beliefs, there’s substantial evidence the beliefs are significant: enough to affect reporting, legal treatment, support services — and to be flagged by researchers and practitioners as social problems.
🧑🤝🧑 What this means in real life — consequences of these attitudes
Many male victims don’t come forward, because they anticipate disbelief or shame. (Canada)
Even when they do report, myths about male arousal or “male strength” may lead authorities, juries, or society to discredit them — which reduces chances of justice and support. (Canada)
There is a feedback loop: under-reporting → less visibility → fewer resources/support systems → continued invisibility of male victims. (Ministère de la Justice)
Certain subpopulations — e.g. gay, bisexual, transgender men — may face additional stigmas and higher risk, which intersects with the myths about sexual orientation and assault. (aasas.ca)
🎯 So — are views like “boys can’t be victims” or “only gay boys are raped / boys must have wanted it” common?
Yes — they exist to a nontrivial degree, often rooted in traditional gender norms, ignorance, or societal discomfort with male vulnerability. But “common” doesn’t mean universal. Many people, organizations, social-justice advocates, and increasingly media/legal institutions do recognize and advocate that sexual assault — regardless of gender — can happen to anyone.
In other words: those beliefs are widespread enough to cause real harm (under-reporting, stigma, injustice), but they are also contested and being challenged — slowly but steadily.
hey chat, bearing in mind that in Canada rape was a crime that specifically only applied to females over the age of 17, and that gross indecency, indecent assault, and buggery were the only charges someone could face for molesting a boy prior to 1985. And that buggery was seen as being a victimless crime, meaning both parties were equally to blame, can you offer your view as to how Canadian society back in the 1970s, 1980, 1990s, all the way to today would have viewed a Captain in his late 50s committing buggery, gross indecency, and indecent assault with children ranging in age from 4 to 14?
Yeah — taken in that legal and cultural context, we can actually trace a pretty stark evolution in how Canadian societywould have understood, minimized, or condemned those acts over time. I’ll be blunt and factual, not aspirational.
I’ll break this down by era, because the same conduct would have been interpreted very differently depending on the decade — largely because of how law framed who could be a victim and what counted as harm.
1. 1970s Canada
Legal framing (critical to social perception)
Rape: legally defined as a crime against females only.
Boys: legally invisible as rape victims.
Buggery: criminalized, but framed as a morality offence, not a violence offence.
“Victimless crime” doctrine: buggery was often treated as mutual wrongdoing — both parties tainted.
If a Captain in his late 50s committed sexual acts with boys aged 4–14, Canadian society in the 1970s would most often have interpreted it as:
A moral scandal, not necessarily child sexual violence.
“Sexual deviance” or “perversion”, especially tied to homosexuality.
A shameful secret, to be contained rather than exposed.
A threat to institutional reputation, not primarily to children.
Key points:
Boys were widely assumed to be less harmed, or “confused,” not violated.
Young boys were sometimes blamed as participants, especially once puberty entered the picture.
Homosexual panic dominated: the act was seen as corrupting masculinity rather than destroying childhood.
Authority figures (officers, clergy, teachers) were often protected, especially if quiet solutions were possible (transfer, early retirement, medical discharge).
In short: 👉 The harm was perceived to the institution and social order — not to the child.
2. Early–Mid 1980s (pre-1985 reforms)
This is a transitional period, but still deeply flawed.
Legal reality
Same offences still in place until 1985.
Criminal Code still structurally incapable of naming boy-rape.
Courts still struggled to conceptualize coercion where penetration didn’t fit heterosexual norms.
Social understanding
By this point:
Child sexual abuse as a concept was beginning to surface.
Feminist anti-violence movements had forced attention on sexual abuse — but mainly of girls.
Abuse of boys was still routinely reframed as:
homosexuality
initiation
moral failing
“bad judgment”
A Captain abusing boys would likely be seen as:
“Disgusting” or “sick”, yes — but still not clearly as a violent offender.
Someone to be quietly removed rather than prosecuted.
Potentially treated as a medical or psychiatric issue, not a criminal one.
👉 Society might condemn him, but still would not fully recognize the children as rape victims.
3. Late 1980s–1990s (post-1985 reforms)
This is when things start to change, but unevenly.
Legal shift (1983–1985)
Rape replaced with gender-neutral sexual assault.
Penetration no longer required.
Children legally recognized as victims regardless of gender.
But social reality lagged
Despite legal reform:
Police, prosecutors, and judges were trained in the old model.
Many cases involving boys were still deprioritized or mishandled.
Male victim stigma remained intense.
In this era, a Captain abusing boys would be viewed as:
A serious criminalif charges proceeded,
But many cases still:
died at the reporting stage,
were downgraded,
or framed around “consensual acts” once a child hit adolescence.
Homosexual stigma still mattered:
Defence narratives often implied the child was “curious,” “complicit,” or “damaged already.”
Abuse of boys was still frequently conflated with sexual orientation.
👉 The law could finally name the crime — but society still hesitated to believe boys.
4. 2000s–2010s
By now, the shift is much clearer.
Trauma science becomes mainstream.
Clergy abuse scandals explode publicly.
Institutional cover-ups become morally repugnant rather than tolerated.
Male victimization gains visibility (slowly).
A Captain committing the same acts would increasingly be seen as:
A predatory child sexual abuser.
Someone abusing power and authority, not merely morality.
A liability whose enablers might themselves be culpable.
That said:
Male victims still face disbelief.
Same-sex abuse still carries extra stigma.
Institutions still often default to reputation management first.
5. Today (2020s)
From a legal and formal social standpoint:
Acts against children aged 4–14 would be unequivocally recognized as:
child sexual assault
aggravated sexual assault
sexual exploitation
Consent is legally impossible.
Power imbalance is central.
Sexual orientation is irrelevant.
Public opinion today:
Overwhelming condemnation.
Expectation of prosecution.
Institutional accountability is demanded — at least rhetorically.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Survivors abused decades ago — especially boys — are still judged through the lens of the era in which the abuse occurred.
Which means:
Their credibility is often retroactively evaluated using outdated assumptions.
Institutions defend themselves by pointing to “standards of the time.”
Victims are implicitly asked why they didn’t speak sooner — despite the fact that, legally and socially, they couldn’t.
Bottom line (plain and factual)
A Captain in his late 50s abusing boys aged 4–14 would have been viewed by Canadian society as:
1970s: a moral deviant, possibly “homosexual,” embarrassingly dangerous — but not clearly a child rapist.
Early 1980s: increasingly suspect, still often protected, children still inadequately recognized as victims.
1990s: legally criminal, socially condemned — but still filtered through male-victim skepticism.
Today: unambiguously a child sexual predator abusing authority and power.
And the most important through-line:
The children — especially boys — were never fully centered until very recently.
That isn’t opinion. It’s the product of how the law defined harm, how masculinity was policed, and how institutions prioritized themselves.
Okay, based on what you know from the 1970 National Defence Act, the 1985 National Defence Act, the 1970 Criminal Code of Canada, the 1984 Criminal Code of Canada, Bill C-25(1998), Legislative Summary LS-311(E) from 1998, I want you to postulate to the best of your ability how male children that were sexually abused by a captain of the regular force would have been dealt with by the military justice system prior to 1998.
Short version: Before 1998, the legal machinery around the Canadian Forces was perfectly set up to protect the officer and the institution, and to marginalize or erase male child victims — especially if the conduct was framed as buggery, gross indecency, or indecent assault rather than “rape” or, later, “sexual assault.”
I’ll walk it through chronologically and tie it to the statutes you named.
1. The legal building blocks (what the law actually said)
Criminal Code, 1970 era (R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34)
In 1970, the relevant offences were:
Rape (s.144) – defined as a man having intercourse with a female who is not his wife, without consent, etc. Male victims didn’t exist in this definition. (canlii.org)
Indecent assault on female (s.149) and indecent assault on male (s.156) – separate, lesser offences. (Justice Laws)
Buggery (s.155) – anal intercourse, criminal per se, regardless of consent.
Gross indecency (s.157) – usually used for non-penetrative sexual acts between males (including with minors). (constancebackhouse.ca)
So for boys in the 1970s:
They could not be “raped” in law.
Abuse would be charged (if at all) as indecent assault on male, gross indecency, or buggery.
Criminal Code, 1983–1984 reforms (Bill C-127)
In 1983/84, Parliament scrapped “rape” and “indecent assault” and created gender-neutral sexual assault offences (ss. 271–273). Penetration no longer defined the offence, and victims could be male or female. (publications.gc.ca)
But buggery and gross indecency offences stayed on the books for years, especially as tools to criminalize male–male sex, and were still used in cases involving minors. (publications.gc.ca)
National Defence Act – key concepts pre-1998
“Service offence”: any offence under the NDA, the Criminal Code, or another Act of Parliament, if committed by someone subject to the Code of Service Discipline (CSD). (legislationline.org)
Section 60 / 69–72 (1970 / R.S.C. 1985 versions): gave military authorities jurisdiction over service offences committed by CAF members, in Canada or abroad. (canlii.org)
Section 70 – “offences not triable by courts martial” (pre-1998): For offences committed in Canada, a court martial had no jurisdiction over certain serious crimes – originally including rape and, later, sexual assault offences – which had to go to civilian superior courts. (laws.justice.gc.ca)Before Bill C-25, s.70 listed murder, manslaughter, and a group of sexual offences (rape / later sexual assault) as off-limits for courts martial when committed in Canada.
But: offences like indecent assault on male, gross indecency, and buggery were not on that exclusion list, so they could be dealt with as service offences in a court martial. The Court Martial Appeal Court explicitly confirmed this for gross indecency. (cmac-cacm.ca)
Limitation period: until 1998, there was generally a three-year time bar in the NDA for many service offences that were not punishable by life imprisonment. That captured things like gross indecency/indecent assault/buggery. After three years, the military could no longer lay a service charge, even for serious child abuse. (beeshive.ca)
Bill C-25 (1998) + Legislative Summary LS-311E (context)
Bill C-25 did a bunch of things (independent military judges, DMP, MPCC, review requirements, etc.), but for our purposes two points matter:
It amended s.70 NDA so that “sexual assault offences” were removed from the list of offences not triable by court martial – i.e. after 1998, sexual assault (ss. 271–273 CC) could be tried in the military system instead of having to go to civilian courts. (publications.gc.ca)
It re-structured military policing and oversight (MPCC etc.). (Canada.ca)
You asked specifically about prior to 1998, so everything below is about the pre-C-25 world.
2. Phase 1: 1970s to early 1980s – 1970 NDA + 1970 Criminal Code
How the law framed the offence
A Regular Force captain sexually abusing male children (4–14) on a Canadian base in the 1970s would legally fall into:
Indecent assault on male (s.156 CC 1970)
Gross indecency (s.157)
Buggery (s.155)
There is no “rape” of a boy in that legal universe. The harm is coded as morality / “homosexual” wrongdoing, not as violent child sexual abuse.
Jurisdiction: military vs civilian
As a serving officer, the captain is subject to the Code of Service Discipline at all times.
Under the NDA, any Criminal Code offence he commits is a service offence, unless s.70 removes it from court martial jurisdiction in Canada. (Justice Laws)
In this era, rape (against females) was excluded from court martial jurisdiction in Canada – it had to go to civilian court.
But indecent assault on male, gross indecency, and buggery were not excluded. That means the CAF legally could:
keep the case inside the military system, via court martial, or
refer it to civilian police/Crown at their discretion.
A 1970s appeal decision (Sullivan) later confirmed that service tribunals had jurisdiction over gross indecency, even where the victims were teenage children of service personnel in the member’s quarters. The court emphasised the “military nexus” and that such conduct “struck deeply at the integrity of the military establishment.” (cmac-cacm.ca)
So, in strict legal terms:
A captain committing gross indecency / indecent assault / buggery with boys on base was squarely within military jurisdiction, and the default course was internal handling, not civilian.
How a case would typically be dealt with (realistic reconstruction)
Gatekeeping by the chain of command
Reports (if any) would surface to the commanding officer (CO) or base authorities.
The CO had enormous discretion about:
whether to call military police,
whether to treat it as a “disciplinary matter” vs. a crime,
whether to involve civilian police at all.
Investigation by base military police
Pre-CFNIS, investigations were conducted by regular military police under command influence, with no independent oversight. (Canada.ca)
Charge selection
The CO and legal officers could strategically choose which offences to lay:
If they wanted to avoid civilian involvement, they’d avoid any charge that might drag it into s.70 territory (rape) and instead lay gross indecency/indecent assault/buggery.
For male child victims, that aligned perfectly with the existing Criminal Code categories anyway.
Disposition options Depending on how “awkward” the situation was for the institution, likely options were:
No charges / quiet removal:
Posting the officer away, early retirement, medical discharge, or “resignation.”
Family pressure to drop the complaint, sometimes framed as protecting housing, benefits, husband’s career, etc.
Service charges only:
Court martial for gross indecency/indecent assault with boys.
The Sullivan case shows that when such matters did get to court martial, sentences were not especially harsh by modern standards (four years on multiple counts reduced to time served of one year, in a case where five teenage boys “consented” and there was no violence). (ca.vlex.com)
Almost never: referral to civilian police for full-blown public prosecution, especially if the victims were dependants on base and the accused was a senior officer.
Treatment of the male child victimsIn the 1970s legal/cultural environment:
Boys were not named as “rape victims” in law.
Conduct was seen through the lens of:
“homosexual acts,”
“corruption of youth,” or
“mutual deviancy” once the boy hit puberty.
There was no victim-rights framework, no trauma-informed practice, and virtually no institutional incentive to see the boy as a primary rights-holder.
So, most likely:
Boys were interrogated as witnesses to a disciplinary problem.
Their credibility was suspect, especially if drinking, misbehaviour, or family problems were in the file.
Formal legal shift: sexual assault becomes gender-neutral
After Bill C-127 (1983) and the 1984 consolidation:
“Rape” and indecent assault were replaced with sexual assault / sexual assault with a weapon / aggravated sexual assault (ss. 271–273 CC). (publications.gc.ca)
These are gender-neutral: boys can clearly be victims.
But:
Older offences like buggery and gross indecency remained in the Code for a long stretch, especially for male–male cases and cases with minors. (publications.gc.ca)
NDA 1985 + section 70
In the R.S.C. 1985 version of the NDA, s.70 was carried forward:
A court martial had no jurisdiction over certain offences committed in Canada, including:
murder, manslaughter, and
sexual assault offences (as they were then listed under the new Code). (cmac-cacm.ca)
So between ~1985 and 1998:
If the conduct was charged as “sexual assault” (ss. 271–273 CC) committed in Canada, it was supposed to go to civilian courts, not a court martial.
But gross indecency, indecent assault on male (for older conduct), and buggery were still service-triable, since they weren’t listed in s.70. (cmac-cacm.ca)
This created a very important jurisdictional fork:
The CAF could choose whether a sexual abuse case stayed “in-house” or went to civilian court by deciding what to charge it as.
If they framed it as:
“Sexual assault on a child” → civilian jurisdiction (in principle).
“Gross indecency / indecent assault / buggery” → military jurisdiction via court martial.
Three-year limitation still in play
Up to 1998, the NDA’s three-year time bar for many service offences meant:
If the abuse wasn’t dealt with within three years, the military justice system lost jurisdiction to lay charges for those service offences (gross indecency, indecent assault, buggery) – even if the Criminal Code itself had no such limitation for a civilian prosecution. (beeshive.ca)
Combine that with:
heavy institutional pressure not to report, and
the reality that children often disclose years later,
and you get a built-in mechanism to guarantee impunity for many historical child-abuse cases if they stayed in the military sphere.
Realistic handling of a Regular Force captain abusing boys (4–14) in this era
If the abuse occurred on base in Canada between mid-1980s and 1997:
Initial response:
Still fundamentally controlled by chain of command.
Now there’s at least a theoretical legal category (“sexual assault on a child”), but cultural attitudes about male victims lag badly.
Charge-selection games:
If the CAF wanted to keep the matter inside, they had an obvious play:
charge the conduct as gross indecency / buggery / “old” indecent assault (if the acts pre-dated the 1983 reforms) rather than as sexual assault.
The Sullivan and Zohner cases show continued use of gross indecency charges involving teenage boys under military jurisdiction. (ca.vlex.com)
Where the case was actually heard:
Option A – Court martial (service trial)
If charged under gross indecency / indecent assault / buggery, it could be tried internally.
Sentencing tended to be relatively light by modern standards; Sullivan is an example where multiple counts involving boys resulted in a sentence ultimately reduced to one year’s time served. (ca.vlex.com)
Option B – Civilian courts
If someone (MPs, JAG, or Crown) decided to characterize it as sexual assault on a child, s.70 required that it go to the civilian system.
In practice, because that meant open court, media risk, institutional embarrassment, there was strong incentive not to go this route unless absolutely forced.
If disclosure came late (e.g., the victims were adults by the 1990s):
If the CAF had treated the acts as service offences (gross indecency/indecent assault/buggery), the three-year time bar would block a late service prosecution. (beeshive.ca)
Theoretically, the matter could still be referred to civilian police as a historic Criminal Code case.
In practice, the military often treated “time bar” under the NDA as an excuse to do nothing further — particularly if the original handling had been internal.
Position of the male child victims in this phase
Even though the law officially allowed them to be recognized as sexual-assault victims:
The conceptual frame still overlapped heavily with:
“homosexual acts,”
“morals offences,” and
concern about the reputation of the Forces and the families.
The process was:
controlled by military hierarchy;
opaque to the victims and their families;
not governed by any true victims’ rights regime (those come much later). (Canada.ca)
So practically: male child victims were still treated more as witnesses to a discipline issue than as rights-bearing victims of serious violent crime.
4. Pulling it together – “How would the system deal with it?”
Based strictly on the statutes and case law, and being as honest as possible about practice, here’s a realistic model of how male children abused by a Regular Force captain would be dealt with before 1998:
Primary gatekeeper is the chain of command, not an independent prosecutor.
The default instinct is to contain the damage, not center the child.
Where possible, the matter is framed as:
gross indecency / indecent assault / buggery, rather than “sexual assault,” to:
keep jurisdiction inside the military,
preserve control over process and publicity, and
avoid the s.70 civilian-court requirement.
If it goes to court martial at all:
It’s treated as a service offence impacting discipline and reputation (“military nexus”),
Sentencing and findings are heavily filtered through the era’s assumptions about consent, homosexuality, and boy victims (Sullivan being a clear example involving teenage boys). (ca.vlex.com)
There is a three-year time bar on service prosecutions for those categories of offences; after that the military effectively washes its hands of criminal liability. (beeshive.ca)
The boys themselves:
rarely recognized as “rape/sexual assault victims” in any meaningful contemporary sense;
given little or no psychological support;
often subject to disbelief, minimization, or pathologizing (“troubled,” “homosexual,” “provocative,” etc.).
In other words:
Prior to 1998, the military justice framework gave the CAF both the power and the tools to keep abuse of male children by officers largely inside its own walls, to re-label it as lesser morality offences, and then to shut the door completely after three years – all while presenting this as perfectly consistent with the law.
Okay, let see the result for “If you’d like, next step I can do is walk through a legally-tight fact pattern—e.g., “Captain X on Base Y in 1978, with 8-year-old and 12-year-old male dependants”—and show, step by step, exactly what charges could be laid, what forum could hear them, and where the system would be most likely to bury it.”
How, before 1998, would the Canadian military justice system handle sexual offences by a Regular Force officer against male children, step by step? What charges were available, what forums could hear them, and where were the built-in places a case could be buried?
I’ll keep this general, factual, and non-graphic.
1. What the law actually gave them to work with
1.1 Criminal Code side (offences)
Before the 1983/84 reforms (roughly 1970–1983):
There was no “rape of a male” in the Code.
Sexual offences against male children were usually framed as:
Indecent assault on male
Gross indecency
Buggery
These were treated as “morality / indecency” offences, even when the victim was a child.
After the 1983/84 reforms (into the 1990s):
“Rape” and “indecent assault” were replaced with:
Sexual assault
Sexual assault with a weapon / causing bodily harm
Aggravated sexual assault
These were gender-neutral and could apply clearly to boys.
BUT:
Older offences like gross indecency and buggery remained on the books for years.
They continued to be used, particularly where the system still thought in “male/male = indecency” terms.
So across the whole pre-1998 period, the toolkit always allowed serious criminal charges against a serving member who abused male children.
1.2 National Defence Act side (jurisdiction & time limits)
Key structural points:
Any Criminal Code offence committed by someone subject to the Code of Service Discipline (CSD) can be treated as a “service offence”.
Courts martial could not try certain offences committed in Canada:
Historically: things like murder, manslaughter, and (after the reforms) the new “sexual assault” offences.
Those had to go to civilian courts if they were actually charged as such.
Older morality offences (indecent assault, gross indecency, buggery) were not in that “forbidden” list.
Those could still be tried as service offences at a court martial in Canada.
Before 1998, there was also a general limitation period in the NDA:
For many service offences that were not punishable by life, there was a three-year time limit on laying charges under the NDA.
That captured most indecency-style service offences.
Once that time passed, the military system would say: “We no longer have jurisdiction to prosecute this as a service offence.”
Civilian prosecutions under the Criminal Code were not bound by that NDA time bar; but practically, once the military decided it was “a service matter” and time ran out, the case was effectively dead unless someone made the unusual move of going to civilian police much later.
2. Step-by-step: how a case would move (or not move)
Step 1 – Entry point: who hears about it?
The allegation usually enters through:
A parent, spouse, or another member reporting to:
the chain of command, or
military police on the base.
There is no automatic, external intake (no independent civilian child-protection agency built into the process). From the first minute, it is in a closed military loop.
Step 2 – Command decision: crime, discipline, or “problem”?
The commanding officer (CO) and/or base commander has enormous discretion at this stage:
They can treat it as:
A serious criminal matter → involve civilian police.
A service offence → keep it inside the military system.
A discipline / conduct issue → avoid criminal framing altogether.
That decision is grounded in:
how they perceive the accused (rank, reputation, usefulness),
how they perceive male child victims,
the perceived risk to the unit’s reputation and the institution.
Legally, all three paths were open for most of the pre-1998 period.
Step 3 – Charge selection: this is where forum gets decided
This is the core of your question: what could be laid, and what does that do to forum and burying?
Option A – Charge under the “serious” sexual assault provisions
After 1983/84:
If the conduct is framed as sexual assault / sexual assault with weapon / aggravated sexual assaultand it occurred in Canada, the NDA (pre-1998) rules meant:
Courts martial could not try those offences.
The case would have to be given to the civilian criminal justice system.
So if they really wanted a fully external criminal process, this is how they’d label it.
Option B – Charge under the “old” indecency provisions
Throughout the period:
If they frame the conduct as:
Indecent assault on male, or – after reforms – historical indecent assault offences
Gross indecency
Buggery
Then those can be treated as service offences triable by court martial, even when they involve children and happened in Canada.
This is the key lever:
By choosing which offence labels to use, the system effectively chooses which forum (civilian vs. military) will hear it.
Option C – Avoid Criminal Code offences entirely
The military can also:
Not use Criminal Code offences at all, and instead charge only under provisions like:
“Conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline” (a broad catch-all).
In that path, the child abuse is legally re-framed as a discipline or career issue, not a criminal one.
Step 4 – Forum: where does it actually get heard?
Once charge selection is made, the forum basically follows.
Forum 1 – Civilian criminal court
Used when:
The system actually classifies the conduct as rape / sexual assault (post-reform) in Canada; or
A commander or legal officer insists on referring indecency-type crimes to civilian police anyway.
Effects:
Public process.
Independent Crown decides charges and resolution.
The military’s role is now “co-operating institution” rather than judge, prosecutor, and jailer.
Forum 2 – Court martial (service tribunal)
Used when:
The offences chosen are indecent assault, gross indecency, buggery, or other offences not excluded from military jurisdiction.
Effects:
Entire process is inside the CAF:
investigation,
charging,
prosecution,
sentencing.
Emphasis in reasoning often falls on:
discipline,
rank,
“good order”, with the child’s harm recognised but not central.
Sentences for these kinds of offences, historically, have not matched what we’d expect for modern child sexual assault; they were often closer to “serious discipline” than to the harsh end of civilian child-sex-offence sentences.
Forum 3 – Pure discipline / admin (no true “trial” at all)
Used when:
Command actively decides not to treat the conduct as criminal.
Effects:
Maybe a unit disciplinary hearing under broad NDA provisions.
Or no formal proceeding at all:
Reassignment,
Release,
Administrative notations in a personnel file.
From the outside, nothing looks like a child-sex prosecution; if you later look at the member’s service record, it might show only “conduct” issues, not crimes.
Step 5 – Time as a structural shield (pre-1998)
For any abuse that:
stays inside the service-offence lane
and isn’t dealt with quickly,
the three-year limitation on laying NDA charges becomes critical.
Consequence:
If no service charges are laid within that window:
The military can say it no longer has jurisdiction to prosecute as a service offence.
If no one has ever involved civilian police:
There’s a gap where nothing ever happens, even though Criminal Code prosecution is still theoretically possible.
Combine that with:
the reality that many child victims disclose years later, and
an institution that has already framed the issue as “handled internally,”
and a large percentage of cases can be neutralised without ever having a real criminal hearing.
3. Where, structurally, cases could be buried
Staying high-level and non-hypothetical, these are the main “bury points” in the pre-1998 architecture:
Initial classification
Treating the allegation as a “discipline issue” rather than a criminal matter from the outset.
Charge selection
Avoiding “sexual assault” offences that would force civilian jurisdiction.
Using indecency-type offences that keep the case inside the military system.
Forum choice
Opting for court martial or unit discipline rather than civilian court, even when the underlying conduct is serious child abuse.
Administrative disposal
Handling the member through posting, release, or internal reprimand instead of any criminal process, so that the abuse never appears as a criminal conviction.
Delay and limitation periods
Letting time run out on the NDA limitation period for service offences, especially when the abuse is not reported immediately or is suppressed.
Perception of male child victims
System actors (command, investigators, lawyers) working from assumptions like:
boys as less “credible,”
male-on-male abuse being “confusing” or “moral” rather than violent, which makes non-prosecution easier to justify.
4. Direct answer in the format you asked
Step-by-step, but general, not personalized:
Allegation arises → goes to chain of command / MPs on base.
Command decides: criminal vs. discipline vs. “problem to move/retire.”
If criminal is acknowledged, legal officers pick which offences:
post-1983: either those older categories or the newer sexual-assault sections.
That choice determines forum:
“Sexual assault” (in Canada) → must go to civilian court (pre-1998).
“Indecent assault / gross indecency / buggery” → can stay in military system as service offences.
If it stays military, a court martial or unit discipline is held, with outcomes controlled internally.
If nothing is done promptly, the NDA limitation period on service offences can run out, after which the CAF can say it has no power to prosecute as a service offence; in practice, that often means nothing more is done.
At every stage, the view of male children as “lesser” or “morally tainted” victims makes dropping, downgrading, or re-framing easier.
That’s the machine, without any storytelling wrapped around it.
Well, stepped far out of the world that I’m allowed to exist in.
I’ve said before that I really don’t particularly care about computers.
Didn’t say that I didn’t understand them, just that I didn’t particularly care about them.
Recently one of the last remaining electro-mechanical elevators was modernized at the hospital. Due to a misunderstanding there was no provision for connecting the elevator to the existing monitoring system to allow the shift engineers to be notified when an elevator breaks down or when someone accidentally presses the alarm button but doesn’t stay to answer the operator, the engineer can prioritize responding to the elevator depending on if the system says the car is out of service or if the car is in service.
Anyways, to run a direct line from the elevator controller to the computer in the engineer’s office was going to cost about $10k to run the shielded CAT6 cable in conduit with about four holes that would need radiographs and coring.
Existing hospital network to the rescue.
The entire hospital is covered with CAT6. Each subnet on the network is basically a switch or gang of switches. The switches in use have 48 ports on them and the switches can be physically uplinked together giving the hospital at least 6 switches per subnet which is 288 ports, 286 when you take away the broadcast and gateway for the subnet. That’s 254 subnet ports + 32 ports that can be used by other VLANS.
So, lots of room for a measly elevator controller to traverse the network.
Isolation Meets Legacy Monitoring: A Practical NAT Story
For the sake of illustration, I’ll use the following fictional IP addressing:
NAT 1 (Engineer’s Office)
WAN uplink: 1.2.2.3
Monitoring gateway (LAN): 2.2.1.1
Monitoring workstation: 2.2.1.2
NAT 2 (Comox Building Elevator Closet)
WAN uplink: 1.2.3.4
Elevator B11 gateway (LAN): 2.2.2.1
Elevator controller: 2.2.2.2
My goal was straightforward: keep the elevator controllers off the main hospital user network, while still allowing structured monitoring traffic to traverse it. To solve this, I deployed a pair of Moxa NAT‑102 devices as dedicated Network Address Translation gateways between the monitoring workstation and the elevator controller domains.
Though NAT devices live in private space internally, they behave more like protocol-opinionated security routers than plug-and-play default gateways. Their firewalls operate in a default-deny, stateful inspection mode: inbound traffic is rejected unless it matches an existing outbound session or a specifically declared rule. In this architecture, flows are permitted because they originate from the monitoring workstation (the client) and are expected by the controller (the host) — not because broad inbound access was opened.
Here’s the packet walk:
The monitoring workstation (2.2.1.2) sends an outbound request for controller data, addressed to the remote NAT’s WAN (1.2.3.4) using the local closet NAT (2.2.1.1) as its next hop.
NAT 1 modifies only the source address, replacing the original host IP 2.2.1.2 with its own egress IP 1.2.2.3, and forwards the packet across the backbone to NAT 2.
NAT 2’s firewall permits the packet because a rule exists to allow flows from NAT 1’s WAN IP (1.2.2.3) into its routing table.
NAT 2 routes the session internally to the Elevator controller LAN (2.2.2.2) via its local gateway interface (2.2.2.1).
The elevator controller processes the request and replies with the requested data. The reply is not blindly broadcast across the LAN — it is returned inside the NAT session state table, allowing NAT 2 to map the translated session back to NAT 1.
NAT 2 applies NAT in the same direction as the reply flow: replacing its own source 2.2.2.1 with its WAN 1.2.3.4, and sends the packet back across the backbone.
NAT 1 permits the inbound packet because it matches an expected reply from NAT 2 and then delivers it back to the original client (2.2.1.2) through its LAN interface.
This design keeps critical OT equipment segmented, predictable, and unscannable from the wider network, while still allowing exactly one channel of monitoring truth to pass in and out. It’s not glamorous, but it works — and that’s often the most important engineering KPI in a 24/7 healthcare environment.
And thus the elevator LAN is isolated from the hospital LAN and vice versa even though they are directly connected to each other
The engineers can see the status of elevator B11 and can receive emergency email notifications when it breaks down.
Bobbie, you must be so proud of yourself!!!!!
For what?
As my father always said, it’s not like I built this shit. So why the fuck am I taking credit for something that somebody else created and made possible?
I didn’t build the fucking Moxa NATs.
I didn’t create the idea of using NATs to hide one private network from another private network.
I didn’t write the software on the monitoring computer.
I didn’t write the software on the elevator controller.
I didn’t create the Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol.
Although the Alberta judge ruled that this class action could proceed against the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces for their bungled handling of the affair on Canadian Forces Base Namao, the CAF and the DND have dug their heels in.
The underlying goal is to have me removed as the representative plaintiff, which would more or less be the death knell for this action.
What the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence have on their side is the frequent changes to the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code of Canada.
The DND and the CAF also seem to be leaning very heavily into the fact that the vast majority of Canadians have no recollection or knowledge of the various inquiries and hearings over the years that found the military justice system to be extremely inadequate and subject to manipulation by superior officers.
The DND and the CAF also seem to be conducting an experiment in law called “Schrodinger’s Base Brat”
Schrodinger’s Base Brat. Subject at all times to the Defence Establishment Trespass Regulations, and the Code of Service Discipline when outside of Canada with their serving parent, but cannot expect protection from pedophile members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Also DND and the CAF seem to be stonewalling in the search for other victims.
It’s not like the DND or the CFNIS have to take on a massive hunt for other victims.
DND and the CAF already have the names of the other ~25 victims of Captain McRae and his helpers that the base military police, the CFSIU, the modern day CFNIS, (ret) Brigadier General Daniel Edward Munro, and the various officers on the courts martial panel know.
It’s also worth wonder if the DND or the CAF have settled with previous victims of Captain McRae and his helpers.
To date the DND and the CAF have insisted that they were never responsible for the safety of children living in military housing located on military bases. The DND and the CAF have also indicated that they have no responsibility for the actions of their service members towards civilians.
Are DND and the CAF just going to run the clock out? This is a favourite tactic of the CAF and the DND. Dead plaintiffs can’t set precedents and can’t claim compensation.
I get to apply for Medical Assistance in Dying in 15 months and 21 days.
All the DND, the CAF, and the DOJ have to do is delay, delay, delay.
But Bobbie, you simply have to stay alive or you’re just going to let the DND, the CAF, and the DOJ win.
Who fucking cares?
Through the 14 years of lies, bullshit, and subterfuge since this matter began in 2011 my father has died. Master Corporal Richard Wayne Gill will not have to explain what deals he made in 1980 with the chain of command.
When my father gave his statement to the CFNIS in 2011, he contradicted social service records and medical records that existed in three provinces that he was unaware of. When I examined him for federal court in 2013, he outright contradicted his statement to the CFNIS. I first gave my social service records to the CFNIS in 2011, then again in September of 2015 when the RCMP suggested to the CFNIS to take another go at the investigation. In 2015 I even gave a copy of the examination that I gave to my father in 2013. You would think that the CFNIS would want to hear the explanation from him as to why there was such a discrepancy between his statement to the CFNIS in 2011 and his statements to social services in 1980 through 1986. Nope, the CFNIS weren’t concerned in the slightest. They had the story they wanted. And that’s all they needed.
The goal of the CAF and the CFNIS in 2011 was to bury this matter. After all the babysitter insisted during a telephone call to Master Corporal Robert Jon Hancock that “Anything he had been involved in as a youth has already been handled by the military” and “if charges were to be brought against him, a lawyer would handle that”.
What deals did the CAF and the DND make with my father in 1980 and then again in 2011? We’ll never know.
My brother died in 2024. We’ll never know what drove him to start injecting ketamine, but apparently he was suffering from major depression and anxiety due to the events of CFB Namao and the dysfunctional household that we grew up in that the CAF shielded from public social services.
What deals did the CAF and the DND make with the babysitter? Again, we’ll never know. Any agreement reached between the babysitter and the DND and the CAF will no doubt be covered by a massive Non Disclosure Agreement.
And yes, NDAs are often applied in these matters. I’m already covered by an NDA. Yeah, I can mention the existence of an NDA. But I can’t mention a single detail about it.
Does the CAF, the DND, or the DOJ have any intention of justice or compensation for the children abused on CFB Namao by an officer of the regular force that were subsequently swept under the rug and posted off to various bases across Canada?
I don’t think so.
This case is so fucking toxic for the CAF and the DND.
Up to now the DND and the CAF have been able to claim that there was never a problem with child sexual abuse on the bases in Canada simply due to the lack of prosecutions.
Meanwhile the truth is we’ll never know how many instances of child sexual abuse were swept under the rug due to the 3-year-time-bar flaw, the summary investigation flaw, the fact that commanding officers had the authority of provincial crown prosecutors to approve or disapprove of criminal code charges against their subordinates, the fact that the CAF has sole jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute service offences, that service offences included all criminal code offences, and that the military retains sole jurisdiction for historical service offences.
The other thing that the DND and the CAF like to insist upon is that all of the questionable members of the Canadian Forces or its various predecessors prior to unification in 1968 were all one-offs, like each base was operated by an independent franchisee like 7-11 stores or McDonald’s.
Captain Angus McRae
Brigadier General Roger Bazin
Colonel Russell Williams Base Commander of Canadian Forces Base Trenton Most of the undergarments that he stole belonged to young girls Agreed to plead guilty to the murders and the rapes so long as the crown didn’t charge him with possession of child pornography that was on a hard drive found in the basement of his home.
RCAF member Sgt. Alexander Kalichuk. Was found to be driving around the backroads adjacent to RCAF Station Centralia offering free panties to girls aged 9 and 10. Was associated with the Lynn Harper family.Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan. Enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces WHILE being investigated by the Ottawa Police Service for numerous sexual assaults on Boy Scouts in the 1970s. Was kicked out of the military in 1985 after sexually assaulting children on Canadian Forces Base Gagetown. These charges were not made known to the provincial crown or entered into CPIC.
All of these men were recruited by the Canadian Armed Forces or the various branches that existed prior to unification in 1968. All of these men were vetted as being suitable for service. All of these men had easy access to the children of service members living on the bases in Canada.
If any of these men molested children living on Canadian Armed Forces Bases prior to 1998, charges can never be brought due to the 3-year-time-bar that existed prior to 1998 as service offences included all criminal code offences that were committed by a service member while subject to the code of service discipline. Regular force members are subjected to the code of service discipline 24/7/365 from the day they enlist until the day they retire ( or are booted from the military). The National Defence Act states that any service offence committed by a person who is no longer subject to the code of service discipline but who would have been at the time of the offence remains the jurisdiction of the Canadian Armed Forces.
There are no exceptions to this.
A sexual pervert or deviant that was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces has the right to expect their service offence to be dealt with by the defective military justice system as it was prior to 1998. Which means that the 3-year-time-bar applies as does the requirement for a summary investigation.
This is why you don’t hear of charges against members of the Canadian Armed Forces for sexual crimes against military dependents that occurred prior to 1998.
Every now and again something pops up that brings Richard back with full force.
I will be so very happy when I am finally freed of Richard.
I started getting into BACnet at the hospital back around 2019 when the outside contract management was replaced with in house management.
Our plant was so far in the dark ages. Pneumatics still make up the vast majority of our controls.
One of the first thing that I started doing when I became the Chief engineer was to start nibbling away at a lot of the inadequacies of our ancient automation systems. And this is where BACnet came in.
I’ve never used BACnet prior to this position. Networking I’ve done. I’ve worked with RS-485 networks before. I’ve got decent knowledge of controls. I’ve also learnt that proprietary licenced controllers are no longer the only way to accomplish automation.
One of the reasons that I’ve taken a shine to ABB drives over the last few years is that they can run by themselves without the need for expensive proprietary controllers that can only be programmed with expensive proprietary software developer kits, proprietary interfaces, and exorbitant licencing fees.
I’ve also installed various other devices that further expand the monitoring capabilities of the system.
But, there was always one piece of equipment that I could never get to work reliably.
With RS-485 networks, the network is supposed to be laid out in one continuous daisy chain. The network is not supposed to have stars or stubs.
Daisy Chain is good.
Stars, rings, backbone with stubs, backbone with stars are bad.
That’s where repeater hubs come in to play.
Or at least so I thought.
Some of the equipment would work fine on a hub, some equipment would work at super slow baud rates, and some equipment absolutely refused to operate at all.
I could never figure out what was going wrong. I thought that my dream of expanding BACnet all over the hospital was a dying dream.
Recently I happened across some documents from Texas Instruments talking about recommended design of circuits using their RS-485 transceiver chips used in communication equipment.
Up to this point in time I had always used MSA Fieldserver BACnet routers as the interface for the network loops. On the router are switches for each port. Bias (+) Bias (-) Term
I had always set the positive and negative bias on, and of course the terminator resistor was turned on. I would also set the terminator resistor at the end of the loop to be on as well.
Well, being the complete idiot that I am, I never noticed that the hubs that I was using, and I’ve tried three different brands, had termination resistors, but they had no bias resistors.
I should have clued into the fact that the outputs of these hubs are galvanically isolated.
To be galvanically isolated, the outputs can’t be tied high to a common power supply nor can the outputs be tied low to a common ground. And this is why they couldn’t have biasing resistors.
This means that while the network was terminated, the 0 and 1 levels were not being defined properly and they’d go all over the place due to common mode voltage.
Some equipment like my ABB drives could handle the floating loop, but other equipment obviously expected the loop to not only be terminated, but to be biased. Equiment like the ABB drives can actually supply the bias voltages for the loop. Most of my other equipment can’t supply the bias voltages.
So, with the knowledge of my lack of knowledge in hand, and with Richard laughing widely in my brain, I soldered up a pair of 4.7k resistors with some hookup wire and some heat-shrink.
The resistors that were missing were the RFS1 and RFS2 which form the bias for the network. The two RT resistors are the termination resistors.
With this diagram as a reference, RFS1 = 4700 ohms, RT = 120 ohms, and RFS2 = 4700 ohms.
As soon as I connected RFS1 from the DC power rail to terminal (A) the LED on the port actually illuminated and started flickering on and off indicating data transmission. And once RFS2 was connected from (B) to ground the intensity of the LED changed the flashing was more defined. A check of my laptop showed that all communication errors on this node went away and all of the devices were back on line.
Why did some equipment work while others didn’t?
Simple.
The ABB, Yaskawa, and Schneider variable speed drives that I have in use at the hospital all have the capability to inject bias on to the loop.
Other equipment that I have such as the flow meters and the actuators typically don’t have the ability to inject bias into the network, and so the network common mode voltages will go all over the place. If the network is allowed to float all over the place the transceivers get confused.
But Bobbie, people make mistakes all the time, you caught this one.
No, the one problem that I face is that I have no paperwork, therefore when I make a mistake it’s because I’m an outright moron. When people with degrees and certificates create massive mistakes, fuhgeddaboudit, don’t worry about it.
It’s actually quite funny, but in a sad and tragic way.
Trades, certificate programs, diploma programs, they’re all made for people without scars. You got scars? Piss off and get outta here.
Well Bobbie, it’s your own damn fault, you should have taken a real trade when you were younger, don’t bitch at us.
Back in my day, to get into the trades you needed either the support of your family or the support of social services.
That wasn’t going to happen.
Being a military dependent is odd in the sense that because you’ve moved amongst the provinces, you’re the other province’s issue.
When I found myself unemployed during Alberta’s recession in 1991, Alberta was willing to give me a bus ticket back to Ontario.
When I first moved to Vancouver in 1992, BC Social Services was more than willing to give me a bus ticket back to Alberta.
When I moved out to Toronto in 1993, Ontario wanted to buy me a bus ticket back to Nova Scotia. Sure, I was born in Nova Scotia. Ain’t got any family out there. My father just happened to the stationed at Canadian Forces Base Shearwater when I popped out.
Your father’s employed with the Canadian Armed Forces, you don’t qualify for this aid program.
You’re a military brat, surely the Canadian Forces is the place for you.
This training program only covers you if you meet these criteria points.
You have no collateral.
You’re gonna need somebody to co-sign a loan for you.
Can’t you get a job where your employer will let you take paid time off whenever you need too?
Find your mother, she’ll fund you.
Tell your father you’re sorry for fucking with his military career when you got abused by Captain McRae and maybe he’ll give you some money.
Why don’t you shack up with someone and let them pay your bills.
What about finding a program that takes your knowledge into account?
Those programs typically existed back in the ’70s and ’80s, but they don’t exist any longer. Basically you’d have to interrupt your entire life and take a full-on trade program that may or may not give you any credit for your adult experience.
I am so looking forward to this…….
As I’ve said before, I will be so devastated if the Government of Canada falls through on implementing Medical Assistance in Dying for reasons of Mental Health.
It’s interesting to use when you’re looking for random ideas or work arounds for working with Raspberry Pis or other electronics issues. When it comes to mathematics and electronics theory that’s where chat shines for me.
Chat also seems to be able to reason and learn, but in very limited means.
When I was working on a blog posting a while ago, just for shits ‘n’ giggles I asked chat if someone who was sexually abused on a Canadian military base prior to 1998 could bring charges against their abuser today.
Chat replied that yes, this was possible, Canada has no statute of limitation on criminal code offences.
So, I fed Chat the entire 1970 National Defence Act.
I asked Chat the same question again.
Chat then replied that the Canadian Armed Forces had a 3-year-time-bar on Criminal Code offences, but people who were sexually abused on base prior to 1998 could still get justice as the Canadian Forces were prohibited from conducting service tribunals for Murder, Manslaughter, or Rape.
I then fed chat the 1970 Criminal Code of Canada.
I asked Chat again, could a person today that was sexually abused as a 8 year old child on a defence establishment prior to 1985 (the year rape was removed from the criminal code) by a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, bring charges against their abuser.
Chat replied that it did not appear so as the crime of Rape was a very specific charge that could not be applied to cases involving girls under the age of 16.
I asked Chat what crimes could apply, Chat listed off: Sexual intercourse with female 14 to 16 Sexual intercourse with female under 14 Sexual intercourse with step daughter Sexual intercourse with foster child or ward Incest. (Notice how Chat seems to be assuming that only females can be victims of sexual assault)
I then asked Chat what the most disturbing thing related to the criminal code offence of Rape was. Chat replied that a husband could never be charged with raping his wife (true).
I then asked Chat what the most disturbing thing was related to the criminal code charge of Sexual Intercourse with Female under the age of 14 was. Chat replied that this charge didn’t apply to anyone if the female under the age of 14 was their wife.(again true)
It should be noted that when the criminal code refers to an age like “under 14” it means that person’s 14th birthday. The charge of “Sexual intercourse with female 14 to 16” meant sexual intercourse with a female from the day she turned 14 until the day she turned 16. Sexual intercourse with female under 14 meant sexual intercourse with any female up to the day she turned 14.
I asked chat if this meant that the Canadian Armed Forces could conduct a service tribunal (courts martial) for these crimes. Chat replied that the Canadian Forces were only barred from conducting service tribunals for Murder, Manslaughter, and Rape.
I then asked Chat how likely it was if an investigation was undertaken prior to 1998 for charges laid by the military police or the CFSIU to just simply vanish?
Chat said that this was very unlikely as the provincial crown prosecutor would be approving criminal code charges and unless there was a lack of evidence, the crown prosecutors didn’t simply dismiss charges.
I fed Chat a copy of Legislative Summary LS-311E(1998) and Bill C-25(1998) and asked Chat to digest both documents.
I asked Chat again, who decided if criminal code charges could proceed or if they’d be dismissed. Chat replied that it was the commanding officer of the accused.
I asked Chat if the Crown Prosecutor ever had any say on Code of Service Discipline matters. Chat replied that there was no mechanism for the crown prosecutor to be involved.
I asked Chat if service offences also included all criminal code offences, Chat replied that yes, according to the 1970 National Defence Act, the 1985 National Defence Act, Bill C-25(1998) and LS-311E(1998) service offences also included all criminal code offences.
I then asked Chat, could a commanding office dismiss any murder charge, and manslaughter charge, or any rape charge that had been brought against their subordinate prior to 1998.
Chat replied that there was no language in the National Defence Acts prior to 1998 to prevent this that LS-311E(1998) made it very clear that the commanding officer could dismiss all charges including charges that were purely civilian in nature.
I then asked Chat why it replied to me the way that it did when I first asked it about the ability of someone to lay charges against their abuser.
Chat replied that it can only base its answers on official documents that it has been trained upon. And these official documents it is trained on come from data that the foundation that oversees ChatGPT has approved.
When I asked it my original question, Chat was basing its responses on the current Criminal Code of Canada that was in effect when the training model was put together as well as the current National Defence Act that was in effect when the current training model was assembled.
Chat had no access to the 1970 National Defence Act, nor did it have access to the 1970 Criminal Code of Canada, the 1970 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the original 1985 Criminal Code of Canada, Bill C-25(1998) or Legislative Summary LS-311E(1998) authored by government lawyer David Goetz. Even though I was asking questions about a very specific period of time, Chat could only reason by using the data that it had been given. It’s not going to go trolling the internet to discover new models to train itself off of.
Disappointing though was the answer that I received when I asked Chat if it could use the information that I had just given it when other people ask about civilians and criminal code issues prior to 19980.
Chat replied that the documents that I gave to it cannot be verified for authenticity as they are not part of the learning model. Chat said that it treats any document that is given to it by any user them same way. Chat said that as long as as I am a registered user and my account is active, then it will remember these documents and take them into consideration when formulating responses to my questions, but that the documents and the responses they provide are only for use in my account and will never be accessible to any other user unless they input the same documents.
I asked Chat if there was any way for the Foundation overseeing chat to be asked to include these types of documents in its learning models. Not really. The Foundation avoids all outside influence. And so the truth dies on the hill of nobility.
In the aftermath of the investigation of Captain McRae in May of 1980, Captain McRae was relieved of his duties.
Major Roger Bazin was brought in to assist Captain McRae with his duties.
In the time after I had been discovered being buggered by my babysitter (McRae’s altar boy) in his bedroom in May of 1980, and before the fire at the babysitter’s PMQ on June 23rd, 1980 the babysitter had caught me in the change rooms at the base swimming pool.
He aggressively escorted me over to the sauna where there was a man waiting in the sauna for me to perform oral sex on him. The questions that the man asked about my ability to perform oral sex and the answers the babysitter gave indicated to me that this man and the babysitter weren’t just randomly in the sauna at the pool.
I turned 9 in September of 1980 if that’s any indication. The babysitter at this point in time was just weeks shy of his 15th birthday. The man had to have been in his 40s.
Anyways, when I received the 1980 CFSIU investigation paperwork in 2018 the name Bazin jumped out at me. After Bazin had retired from the Canadian Forces he was involved with paying a cash settlement to a family for inappropriate sexual relations with their son. Apparently this occurred in a small religious community in northern Ontario and the family didn’t want to make a fuss. And more importantly Bazin had been investigated in 2010 for molesting a young child on Canadian Forces Base Borden when he was the base chaplain in 1974.
The case against Bazin was strong enough that it made it to court. Sadly this case got derailed by the 3-year-time-bar.
And that’s more or less what happened with my complaint.
Apparently the CFNIS contacted Bazin and asked him if he remembered anything from Canadian Forces Base Namao. Nope. Couldn’t remember anything.
Now, what I don’t understand is why the CFNIS never went any further and tried to contact the babysitter to see who this man was that he provided me to. Was it Bazin or was it someone else?
And if it was someone else, who was it?
Was it a member of the reserves?
Was it a member of the regular forces?
Was it a civilian relative of a service member like a brother or a brother in law?
I feel pretty safe in saying that middle aged men just don’t randomly hang out in the saunas at the Rec Centres on Canadian Forces Bases hoping to get blown by 8 year old boys.
Comments from my babysitter to Corporal Robert Jon Hancock
I wonder what the Canadian Armed Forces actually knew about the babysitter and the extents of what he did on CFB Namao from 1978 until 1980. I wonder why the Canadian Forces are “handling” things for him.
Did the Canadian Forces know in 1980 who this man was?
How many other kids was the babysitter pimping out to “men in saunas” and military chaplains?
When the military agreed to “handle” things for the babysitter, was the military trying to protect the babysitter, or was the chain of command trying to cover their own asses and limit their liability?
The only reason I can think of for the CFNIS in 2020 not wanting to talk to the babysitter to positively identify the man in the sauna is that this would result in yet another civil action.
Another Canadian Armed Forces military chaplain was involved with unwanted sexual touching.
I can’t be the only one sensing a trend going on here.
Captain Father Angus McRae (chaplain).
Captain McRae’s altar boy.
Brigadier General Roger Bazin (chaplain)
Corporal Donald Joseph Sullivan (instructor of altar boys)
and now Captain Jean El-Dahdouh (chaplain).
And no, these aren’t the only chaplains.
Unfortunately the way military record keeping worked is that military convictions via summary trial or courts martial were not compiled in a database or made known to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC). The only way that the sexual escapades of a member of the Canadian Armed Forces ever made it into the public realm is if the member appealed their military conviction in the Courts Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC). Only after the conclusion of a CMAC appeal would the fact that a courts martial occurred become public knowledge. This is how the Ontario Crown was completely unaware of Donald Joseph Sullivan’s military convictions for child sexual abuse when he was sentenced in the 2000s for sexually abusing children in the ’80s.
Who knows how many kiddie diddler chaplains there were in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Somehow Captain El-Dahdouh got the bright idea to assault women at a nordic spa in Chelsea in the province of Quebec.
Two of his known victims were 17.
Apparently the Canadian Armed Forces took swift and decisive move in 2016 of suspending the good Captain until he was convicted in 2019. Not sure if he was confined to barracks, or suspended with pay.
Going to go out on a limb here and I’ll just assume that the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service conducted one heckuva detailed investigation to see if the good Captain had any interactions with military dependents under the age of 18 on which ever bases Captain El-Dahdouh had been stationed at or had visited.
All I can say is that it’s a damn good thing that these incidents of abuse occurred OFF-BASE and after December 1998 and the passage of Bill C-25(1998).
Had these abuses occurred on base prior to 1998, then the 3-year-time-bar would have been in full effect as well as the summary investigation flaw. Even if the women had reported Captain El-Dahdouh to the military police or the CFSIU right away, the women would have had to hope like hell that Captain El-Dahdouh’s commanding officer didn’t simply dismiss the charges brought against Captain El-Dahdouh.
“He was just being overly friendly”
“He had a little too much to drink”
“Ministering to the military causes a lot of stress”
I wonder how his commanding officer would have explained this away.
Beeshive 