Abuse among English Marines

Remove all ads!

Is news here since 2 days ago, weird nobody said anything about it here.
The movie we see shows naked marines 'forced' to fight against each other.
When we watched the video, my girfried asked what's wrong with it, apparently, is a initiation ceremony, and that's usually happens everywhere, so, she thought that is nothing 'wrong' or 'weird' about it, but then the complete video shows an 'officer' dressed in green beating one marine in the head until he drops down. So that seems to be wrong.
Is this kind of behaviour normal? Is acceptable?
Initiation rituals are almost 'normal' even in new works or schools, but I think that the kind of violence that the video shows is not acceptable.

[ November 30, 2005, 16:31: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

I personaly don't see the reason for initiation ceremonies that includes violence, sick stuff or too embarrassing acts, and I don't tolerate being personaly exposed to it.

I don't think this kind of behaviour is acceptable, often times things get far worse than previusly intended, and there has been cases of death and mutilations in these situations.

 

At first, it just seems funny. Not to mention extremely homo-erotic. A bunch of naked Army guys wrestling... you can see the doing the rounds of a certain kind of internet site, everyone having a laugh at their expense and moving on. However, the beating then puts another slant on things. That's just assault, and adds the implication that the men there were bullied to be there, rather than by some kind of choice. Then you have to think about the implications for inclusivity in the Army. Many cultures (Islam in particular) would find this sort of thing highly offensive. How can the armed forces expect to be able to draw a representative cross-section of recruits from society if it indulges these practices? Of course, several top brass have appeared on TV already to say that this sort of thing isn't tolerated, etc. but that's . More accurately, it's not officially tolerated but everyone just turns a blind eye to it to avoid stirring up trouble. This kind of thing doesn't just give a poor impression of the Armed Forces' professionalism; it actively distances them from modern Britain.

Frankly, I have never been as relieved that National Service was done away with so long ago.

 

I heard an ex Royal Marine say in an interview that this is pretty common and that it usually ends without any serious violence, this particular case however shows an officer kicking a man in the face when he refused to hit his opponent with his fists. Seems to me they have reason enough now to sack this perverted officer. Traditions are one thing, but kicking a man in the head because ge refuses to carry out an insane order is a whole different story.

 

It is indoctrination of violent behavior in a semi-controlled environment so that they can deal with a violent and uncontrollable world. Mankind has been doing it since before we became Man.

By the way, anyone think the Philadelphia Eagles will finish over .500?

 

A incident along these lines happened a number of years ago in the US Marines -- it was referred to as the 'blood-wings' video.

There are always those that abuse tradition to fulfill their own demented quest to hurt others. Fortunately, those people are usually found and removed from the service.

 

I totally agree with Bahir. I believe that initiation ceremonies put people under such a degree of pressure from both peers and superiors, as well as local customs, that it hardly counts as fully consensual. In short, we can speak of coercion whenever violent or embarrassing things happen.

A little mud hasn't killed anybody. Or getting tired. However, what I believe doesn't go in school or army or any other initiation ceremonies:

• Beating with normal strength (i.e. more than sparring)
• Stripping to underwear or beyond
• Being touched by members of the opposite sex on exposed skin or on the midsection or chest (if female) or by members of the same sex on private parts (chest may count for women depending on the situation)
• Basically anything charged sexually, such as anything to do with underwear, sex-related shouting or comments (especially from the opposite gender), making people dance around a pipe, anything sexually suggestive or flirtacious
• Making people eat expired food, drink alcohol or take drugs (from unprescribed medicine to hard drugs), whatever they are allergic to, basically whatever could cause vomiting or worse reaction
• Making people perform any kind of self-humiliation (such as crawl under the table and bark like a dog when they order you -- an ancient punishment for spreading false rumours ) or inflict any harm on their own bodies
• Anything which goes against the subject's religious, national or family feelings (such as forcing people to deface their religious symbols, insult relatives/ancestors etc)

Whenever any of these happens, I believe the police should be called and the public prosecutor contacted. In the army, it's pretty obvious they aren't going to be light on you, but they still have to respect your modesty, religious feelings etc and give you at least some measure of dignity and privacy. In schools, there is no such thing as army discipline in place, so my criteria are even stricter. If a male student touches a female student's underwear or what underwear would cover or even makes a comment like "nice butt" during a situation when he has some power over the rookie (i.e. being the master of the ceremony or a helper and the one that comes up with the bad things), it's already the crime of sexual harassment. Same for female students who have any degree of power over male students in the ceremony, as well. At my university, the ceremony involved first year girls kissing some strangers and dancing around the pipe, but they had the option to refuse (the pipe) and were told that they will be graded and rewarded for performance (kissing -- basically, they got more cheers for kissing a guy on the butt than on the cheek ), so the degree of coercion was minimal (but still too high in my book and I really wonder why the freaking law department authorities who were present allowed that atrocity to go on). In fact, even if they force you to behave in a sexy way as a part of the ceremony, it's not like you are being violated (done harm to against your will) so much, but what they do is awful and deserves some attention from the law enforcement. Okay, perhaps reading the Commercial Code in an affectionate way doesn't count, but still... Well, and whatever involves underwear or body parts that are covered by it, is wrong and out of place.

In the army, it may be necessary to strip to underwear or even naked in the presence of people of your own gender in field circumstances. Shared showers in barracks aren't abomination, but those who care should be enabled to use cabins (for example, if they are gay and are bothered by males looking at them naked). Superiors or anyone should be legally obligated to turn heads away when you are forced to change clothes if you ask them. No naked training, for decency's sake. It's never necessary. Perhaps some martial arts are better train unencumberred, but briefs or boxers for males or a swimsuit for females don't restrict too much.

Beating is absolutely out of place. I suppose certain special units may be expected to use real strength in training, but corporal punishment is illegal in the civilised world and beating someone up is a crime. Humiliation as a punishment is unnecessary and probably illegal pretty much everywhere in pretty much all circumstances in the civilised world, except maybe such a relatively light form as public remonstration or making your offence known to the other people.

Whatever includes any degree of sexuality needs to be banned in situations where they have power over you and army life is one of such situations. Especially when it's training or similar where discipline and obedience is crucial.

Of course, any degree of sexual coercion or abuse of rank (position, commission, jurisdiction) in sex-related ways needs to lead to discharge and loss of rank (being banned from command/jurisdiction/administration in lighter cases, demoted to 2nd class private soldier in other cases). Violence should result in strict punishment and obligatory sensitivity training with an exam, additional supervision and discharge (dishonourable if needed) on second offence. Even excessive shouting should lead to some kind of sensitivity training. Excessive violence can be tamed and unlearnt to some extent, but there's no place in the army on freaks who get off on violence or abuse their position to get laid (or be otherwise satisfied sexually to any extent). And no, boasting your medals before girls doesn't count. I'm talking about abuse of subordinates, civilians in special zones, people who are in need of supplies you're in charge of or papers that need your signature etc. Same treatment for civilians hired by the army, of course.

However, outside the army, it's way easier to refuse to submit to offensive parts of a ceremony. If there is no threat of violence, a normal person should have enough willpower to resist peer pressure if he or she is really bothered by what's going on. This doesn't apply to unexpected situations (e.g. if you're a female student and get patted on the rear side by a male student by surprise) but it does apply when you know what's going to happen (like when there's a queue and you're in the middle, so there's no surprise or shock factor and you have the time to realise what's going in). In those cases, "masters of ceremony" should be punished for the criminal offence (molestation or assault), but damages awarded in civil lawsuits shouldn't be too high (victim's cooperation proportionally reducing the offender's duty to compensate). Steps should be taken to limit their opportunity to reoffend.

[ November 30, 2005, 18:50: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

They're having a bit of a laugh, but this one got a bit out of hand. The officer will probably be reprimanded (rightfully) but outside of that, there's no big deal. They've got to get some amusement out there!

 

as a member of the RAF reg i work closely with the royal marines, and i have never seen anything like this before

 

Initiations have been around for ages. Pretty well every group has something. Religions have baptisms, clubs have dues, teams have hazing of rookies, fraternities have hazing of pledges, Gangs have "beating in", etc. This sort of thing has a long history.

Which isn't to say that I think it's OK -- one of the many reasons I never have been much for organized sports -- or any organized activity, for that matter -- is this element of humiliation or test to prove worthiness to associate. Many people, though, will do anything to fit in or gain status. One theory about why the military does is is that they want to "toughen up" the new recruits. Thank God I'm too old to be conscripted (if there were to be one, that is.)

 

@LKD: Catholics used to have a face slap (symbolic) during Confirmation. Footballers would walk on rookies in their special playing shoes. Children's holiday camps include "baptisms" with lots of crawling in mud, throwing expired food around etc, same in schools and universities. It's different from beating and/or nudity/sex-related stuff.

Of course, you're right about people doing much to fit in. If I were the parent of a child not refusing to undergo sexual humiliation in an initiation ceremony I would seriously worry. People should have more spine than just agreeing to everything to fit in and whining later. Not being cool in peers' eyes, what a disastrous consequence.

 

Good luck with that. I've never heard of a good-natured drill sergeant.

Actually, good luck with all of this, as well-intentioned and common sensical as your reforms seem to be. There is a totally different mindset in the armed forces sub-culture, and reports like this just serve to strengthen my belief that there are people like this all over the world. The only reason the U.S. military gets more press is because we're a super-power. While I don't support hazings, maltreatment of prisoners, etc., I'm pretty sure this happens a lot more than any of us know.

 

Eh, drill sergeant is different from lieutenant or quartermaster or a military medic dealing with a military nurse (or pilot with steward(ess)), right?

 

As long as it's consensual, they should be allowed to beat on each other as much as they want. These things should be addressed up front though, and not hidden from new recruits or the public. If it happens, people should know about it so they can avoid it if they want to.

chev's list pretty much sums up my thoughts except for the first two. If you've agreed to beat on each other full-force, then that's what you get. And stripping to underwear (briefs and possibly bra) in same-sex company is done all the time in locker rooms, and can leaves less for an opponent to grab onto. Inappropriate touching is another matter, though, and that underwear shouldn't come off unless all gathered are completely comfortable with it.

 

I'm not condoning it, and yes, I do see a distinct difference with drill sergeants compared to the other examples you gave. Moreover, I agree with you completely. I just don't think there's anything anyone can do to change the indoctrination into the sub-culture that almost everyone undergoes once they've spent a significant amount of time in the military.

 

I don't know how you say it in English but we call it 'vicious circle'. In my first year in high school (secondary?) I remember that guys from the 4th or 5th year asked us money, cigarrettes, food, etc., in a no so friendly way, and if they were smoking in the bathrooms, we could never go there; when we were on 4th or 5th, we did the same that we suffered before. So a soldier that is abused in his own army is more prone to abuse his captured enemies.

 

Hmm, I just don't see how people can trust each other in the army if they have to go through these initiations. When a soldier is on the battlefield, they need to be able to trust their fellow soldiers, because it could save lives.

 

I think you people are taking it just a little bit too seriously... lads have a laugh and a joke and sort things out when one of them ****s up or takes something too far.

 

Nearly killing someone isn't laughable.

 

I don't think anyone nearly died... proportion and blown out come to mind... As I say, this one appears to have gone too far, but nobody knows the full story, only sensationalist press coverage.
Anyway, lads can sort things out, you know what I mean.