Stolen Valour: Another Scumbag

The BBQ Pit
61

The provision should only cover instances where the fake garb is used to recieve some type of government benefits (I’m sure difficult to do without actual paper proving what you are) or if the situation places others at risk, such as when dressed like a nurse in a hospital and say “attending” to a patient.

That should be it. Criminalizing some poor, loser idiot teenager because he went to the prom with a uniform to impress whoever, or some dude who attended a funeral in uniform, is just beyond ridiculous.

Scorn SHOULD be given to the person, but I don’t see anything criminal about this.

62

Especially since their weapon of choice is a Foley catheter.

63

FWOOP! Sucked itself right into my torso, it did. :eek:

64

Geez Louise, reading the comments on this guy:eek: (not here, some CAF boards)

Yes, he’s a moron. Medals and ribbons aside, that beret is ridiculous, and where is his SASH?! Seriously, Google some dress regs.

I understand the “Sgt” Franck Gervais and his wife are in hiding, and he was fired. I think that’s a little over the top, by all reports, the guy was a good employee, and had been working with that company for 12 years.

He should face the appropriate charges and clearly needs some professional help.

65

Not fired. Suspended with pay.

If they fired every person who exaggerated some part of their past not much work would get done. Give him some time off (I don’t suppose much construction work gets done around Ottawa in the winter), have him shave and buy some new sunglasses, and it will be like this never happened.

66

If he included his bogus military service on his resume/job application, then, yes, he should be fired.

67

:smack:

I want to apologize to Boyo Jim for confusing his name with Bozuit’s. Don’t know why the fuck I did that. :smack:

68

Thank you for this great explanation. I was always of the opinion that, while tasteless and crass, inappropriately wearing the uniform should be dealt with by social approbation and not legal. I never thought of it in the terms above and you may have just changed my mind.

69

He is being charged under Section 419 (as listed upthread).

ETA: I think the guy has suffered enough - lost his job, criminal charges laid, and god knows what’s happening in his domestic life. He needs counselling not a vendetta.

70

Yes.

('Course, I say that about a lot of people, and a lot of Pit subjects.)

71

That’s what I don’t get. Even if nothing else, my close family and friends certainly noticed when I went away for ten weeks and was only accessible by mail addressed to an Army base. The only way I could imagine having faked it would be to completely sever contact with everyone who knew me “before”, move somewhere new, and set up a whole new life. Which seems like an awful lot of effort for some marginal tokens of social approval.

Which makes me think that anyone who would try and pull this off is, as said, in serious need of help.

72

I’m not condoning what he did, but in America freedom of speech goes a long way in protecting wackos from being prosecuted for being wackos. Too bad Canada doesn’t enjoy that Constitutional protection.

73

Calm down now!

He’s likely been charged so, firstly, it costs him money to weasel out of, so he’ll think twice about repeating this behaviour.

And secondly, so his sentence can be reduced or plead down to, mandatory mental health counselling and maybe public service with veterans or something.

He should be worried, they want him worried I expect. But I’ll not be surprised if it turns out as I predict.

Give it some time to shake out.

74

It looks like Sergeant Franck Gervais was trying to get himself some publicity, not (financial) benefits. So what’s the difference between guys like him & say, a Civil War re-enactor? They’re both wearing uniforms they’re not entitled to. Yet because one is historical it’s okay?

75

Well, we don’t have many Civil War re-enactors up here in Canada. :slight_smile:

The difference is that the Criminal Code offence (quoted uphread, post 14) specifically prohibits the wearing of “a uniform of the Canadian Forces”.

The Queen’s Regulations and Orders then defines uniforms to be “as prescribed by the Chief of Defence Staff.”

So it’s a very specific offence: it only covers current uniforms of the Canadian Armed Forces, since those are symbols/indicators of the Government of Canada.

You want to wear a Civli War uniform in Canada? fill your boots, no problem. You wear an old uniform of the Canadian military from WWII? no problem - no longer prescribed as a uniform by the Chief of Defence Staff.

The offence only applies to someone who is wearing a current uniform, which is a symbol of military serving the Government of Canada. You have to have lawful authority to use that symbol of the federal government.

76

Before you start painting with that broad brush, you may want to take a look at the relevant statutory provisions.

I assume you’re referring to the Stolen Valor Act, which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. However, that provision did not have anything to do with the wearing of a uniform. It criminalised claiming to have received a military decoration, as summarised in the wiki article on the SCOTUS decision: “… a misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal.[2] If convicted, defendants may be imprisoned for up to six months, unless the decoration lied about is the Medal of Honor, in which case imprisonment could be up to one year.”

So it was the act of making a false claim of having received a medal which was held to violate the First Amendment.

That’s not what the Canadian Criminal Code provision addresses. The provision makes it an offence to wear a uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces without lawful excuse, or to wear medals without lawful excuse. It doesn’t address the broader issue of false claims to have received a medal, which is what the first version of the Stolen Valor Act addressed, and which the SCOTUS struck down. The Criminal Code is completely silent on someone making a false claim to have received a medal, so there is no parallel between the charges faced by Franck in Canada, and the charge faced by Alvarez in the US case.

The more accurate comparison is between s. 419 of the Criminal Code, quoted upthread, and 18 USC § 702.

Section 419 prohibits the wearing of Canadian Armed Forces uniforms and medals, without lawful excuse.

18 USC § 702 reads:
[QUOTE=Congress of the United States]

Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform or a distinctive part thereof or anything similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service or any auxiliary of such, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
[/QUOTE]

So, US federal law similarly prohibits the wearing of a US military uniform, without authority. And guess what?

[QUOTE=Justice Black]
Our previous cases would seem to make it clear that 18 U.S.C. 702, making it an offense to wear our military uniforms without authority is, standing alone, a valid statute on its face.
[/QUOTE]

(*Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 at 61(1970)*.)

So, on the issue of a federal law which prohibits someone from wearing a federal uniform without lawful authority, the US and Canadian statutes appear to be similar in effect. And, the SCOTUS has held that the US federal offence of wearing a US military uniform without authority is “a valid statute on its face.”

77

I don’t know how you could mistake that for an attempt at being edgy.

What could be more moronic than finding it ludicrous to get this angry over a guy playing dress up?

I’m beginning to wonder if some people on this board are unaware that it’s not actually currently WWII and that this subject has nothing to do with it. But keep bringing up the emotional bullshit if it makes you feel like you’ve got the moral high ground.

78

As a number of other posters mentioned, in the US, it’s not a criminal offense merely to fake up a military uniform and pretend to have been awarded a bunch of heroism medals.

Counseling is, IMHO, also ridiculous. So he pretended to have been awarded some medals? Bid deal. Lots of people are braggarts. It’s silly to go into a rage over one particular segment of said pretenders. It’s even sillier to have a law criminalizing such speech. As the speech shouldn’t be criminalized, there should be no reason to order counseling.

Maybe they’re just in need of a reality check. Or those who end up continuing the pretense, either the same pretense or picking another lauded group to pretend to be a member of, aren’t happy with their own real lives and are looking for public adulation. But ti’s still not criminal.

Right. As long as the pretender isn’t getting a material advantage without the provider of said material advantage knowing of the pretense in advance, then it’s no big deal.

Come to think of it, when I was a kid, I ended up going to a lot of public military functions because my dad was a career Army officer. Sometimes, there’d be some pretender that everyone, even we kids, could tell right off the bat wasn’t who and what they claimed to be. AFAIK, nobody beat them up, nobody tried to get them arrested, and nobody threatened to kill them or their families. We all just avoided the pretenders. Essentially, it was an earlier incarnation of “DNFTT”.

Well, there have been people who go from one pretense to the other. Getting caught out didn’t seem to stop the behaviour.

I still don’t agree that speech should be criminalized when said speech does not harm anyone at all. And “stealing valor” is a BS term that has no real meaning.

I predict he’s going to have some kind of deal with the CPS as you say.

The dude’s not now and never has been a Sergeant.

In the US, AIUI, one has to be attempting to perform the functions of the government officer which one is pretending to be to actually be committing the offense of impersonating a government officer. I’m welcome to that understanding being corrected, though.

I agree with you completely. The outrage over the childish stunt is feeding the ego, likely as much as or even more than the stunt itself in the first place.

79

Hi, Monty, I don’t have any specific knowledge of US law, being a Canuck, but from noodling around on the United States Code online, it looks to me that there are two separate offences.

I think the one that you’re thinking of is impersonating an officer or employee of the United States, found at 18 USC 912:

(Posting with my phone, so I can’t cut and paste the text in - sorry.)

That offence does indeed require that the accused has consciously tried to impersonate an officer, and tried to obtain something of value. Some “stolen valor” guys have been convicted of that offence:

However, there is a different offence, which I linked to up thread: 18 USC 702, which makes it an offence to wear the uniform of the armed forces of the United States, “without authority”. That provision does not seem to me to require proof that the accused was consciously trying to impersonate, nor any attempt to benefit.

That’s the provision which Justice Black, speaking for the Court, said was constitutional on its face.

It seems to me, not speaking in any way as a US lawyer, that that provision of the USC is very similar to the provision of the Criminal Code of Canada under which Gervais is being charged. Neither one requires any attempt at financial benefit from wearing the uniform, but simply prohibits people from using the uniform of the armed forces without authority.

However, like you, I’m certainly open to correction by someone more knowledgeable in the area.

80

And if the nature of his job involves the employer trusting him and relying on his honesty, this could certainly be a red flag, even if he didn’t put it on his job application.