Yes. He should never have done that. I suspect he did it out of fear of being called a homophobe by the media and the opposition, which is even worse because it's the radical left forcing the government's surrender of the armed forces to their cause through threats and intimidation.

Or best case scenario he did it because he saw the "Pride" movement as non-partisan at the time (since the CPC were taking a pro-gay position by then).

Maybe "Pride" was nonpartisan at the time, but today the whole thing is hyper-partisan which means the military shouldn't be anywhere near it.

Edit: And it doesn't even matter how contentious or non-contentious an issue is. Even if 100% of Canadians support X, it's still inappropriate for the military to rally/demonstrate in support of X, because the military as an institution does not have the right to an opinion on X. Their opinion on X is whatever elected government tells them it is. That's the military's place in a free society. For the military to stand up and say "Yeah, we agree with elected government on X" is to suggest that the military has the prerogative to agree or disagree with elected gov't on an issue. They do not.

In the military, if the Colonel tells you his attack plan and you (a Private) say "I agree, good plan", you will get a strip torn off you. That's insubordination. You do not have the prerogative to judge the Colonel's plan, or to choose whether you agree or disagree. There is the Colonel telling you his plan, and you saying "Yes sir" and obeying. That's all. Because you're his subordinate. You don't have a choice.

By saying "I agree", you're asserting a prerogative you don't have, and you're promoting yourself to a peer of the Colonel. Try that, and you will be put in your place in dramatic fashion.

It's the same thing with with the Armed Forces signalling their agreement with the govt's stance on gay rights (by sending uniformed personnel into pride parades). By doing so, the military is implying they have a choice in the matters, that they have the prerogative to agree or disagree. They don't.

This is exactly why the military is supposed to stay out of politics in a free society. We've known this for centuries. Why all of a sudden is this such an alien concept?

Yes. He should never have done that. I suspect he did it out of fear of being called a homophobe by the media and the opposition, which is even worse because it's the radical left forcing the government's surrender of the armed forces to their cause through threats and intimidation.

Or best case scenario he did it because he saw the "Pride" movement as non-partisan at the time (since the CPC were taking a pro-gay position by then).

Maybe "Pride" was nonpartisan at the time, but today the whole thing is hyper-partisan which means the military shouldn't be anywhere near it.

Edit: And it doesn't even matter how contentious or non-contentious an issue is. Even if 100% of Canadians support X, it's still inappropriate for the military to rally/demonstrate in support of X, because the military as an institution does not have the right to an opinion on X. Their opinion on X is whatever elected government tells them it is. That's the military's place in a free society. For the military to stand up and say "Yeah, we agree with elected government on X" is to suggest that the military has the prerogative to agree or disagree with elected gov't on an issue. They do not.

In the military, if the Colonel tells you his attack plan and you (a Private) say "I agree, good plan", you will get a strip torn off you. That's insubordination. You do not have the prerogative to judge the Colonel's plan, or to choose whether you agree or disagree. There is the Colonel telling you his plan, and you saying "Yes sir" and obeying. That's all. Because you're his subordinate. You don't have a choice.

By saying "I agree", you're asserting a prerogative you don't have, and you're promoting yourself to a peer of the Colonel. Try that, and you will be put in your place in dramatic fashion.

It's the same thing with with the Armed Forces signalling their agreement with the govt's stance on gay rights (by sending uniformed personnel into pride parades). By doing so, the military is implying they have a choice in the matters, that they have the prerogative to agree or disagree. They don't.

This is exactly why the military is supposed to stay out of politics in a free society. We've known this for centuries. Why all of a sudden is this such an alien concept?

Yes. He should never have done that. I suspect he did it out of fear of being called a homophobe by the media and the opposition, which is even worse because it's the radical left forcing the government's surrender of the armed forces to their cause through threats and intimidation.

Or best case scenario he did it because he saw the "Pride" movement as non-partisan at the time (since the CPC were taking a pro-gay position by then).

Maybe "Pride" was nonpartisan at the time, but today the whole thing is hyper-partisan which means the military shouldn't be anywhere near it.

Edit: And it doesn't even matter how conditions or non-contentious an issue is. Even if 100% of Canadians support X, it's still inappropriate for the military to rally/demonstrate in support of X, because the military as an institution does not have the right to an opinion on X. Their opinion on X is whatever elected government tells them it is. That's the military's place in a free society. For the military to stand up and say "Yeah, we agree with elected government on X" is to suggest that the military has the prerogative to agree or disagree with elected gov't on an issue. They do not.

In the military, if the Colonel tells you his attack plan and you (a Private) say "I agree, good plan", you will get a strip torn off you. That's insubordination. You do not have the prerogative to judge the Colonel's plan, or to choose whether you agree or disagree. There is the Colonel telling you his plan, and you saying "Yes sir" and obeying. That's all. Because you're his subordinate. You don't have a choice.

By saying "I agree", you're asserting a prerogative you don't have, and you're promoting yourself to a peer of the Colonel. Try that, and you will be put in your place in dramatic fashion.

It's the same thing with with the Armed Forces signalling their agreement with the govt's stance on gay rights (by sending uniformed personnel into pride parades). By doing so, the military is implying they have a choice in the matters, that they have the prerogative to agree or disagree. They don't.

This is exactly why the military is supposed to stay out of politics in a free society. We've known this for centuries. Why all of a sudden is this such an alien concept?

Yes. He should never have done that. I suspect he did it out of fear of being called a homophobe by the media and the opposition, which is even worse because it's the radical left forcing the government's surrender of the armed forces to their cause through threats and intimidation.

Or best case scenario he did it because he saw the "Pride" movement as non-partisan at the time (since the CPC were taking a pro-gay position by then).

Maybe "Pride" was nonpartisan at the time, but today the whole thing is hyper-partisan which means the military shouldn't be anywhere near it.

Yes. He should never have done that. I suspect he did it out of fear of being called a homophobe by the media and the opposition, which is even worse because it's the radical left forcing the government's surrender of the armed forces to their cause through threats and intimidation.

Or best case scenario he did it because he saw the "Pride" movement as non-partisan at the time (since the CPC were taking a pro-gay position by then).

Maybe "Pride" was nonpartisan the time, but today the whole thing is hyper-partisan which means the military shouldn't be anywhere near it.