But the interview gives rise to further questions, including:
If this was such a big 'disciplinary' issue, and if 'disobedience of a lawful command' was such a threat to the 'habit of obedience' of CF personnel and the discipline, efficiency, and morale of the CF, then why were no charges laid under s 126 (Refusing immunization, tests, blood examination or treatment) or s 83 (Disobedience of a lawful command) of the National Defence Act (NDA)?
And if the issue was more of failure to comply with a 'condition of service' (albeit, one retrospectively imposed) then why do the CDS and other senior leaders keep characterizing this as a disciplinary issue involving the 'habit of obedience'?
It looks like the CF personnel affected by these decisions will have to wait for their grievances to be resolved.
In 3 to 5 years.
If they are lucky.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).