• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Cenotaph/Memorial Vandalism/Solutions-Laws (merged)

Brothers and Sisters, these two meatheads will get some stern words from the judge, and probably a fine, but it will end there. The 'system' is too broken to give the punishment that these two deserve. I am sure this will quickly die in the nations press, due to lack of interest( no blood, guts, or other news worthy stuff). It seems that the Forces as a whole will continue to take a backseat in the news as long as our troops are not dying in some battle. Domestic incidents don't garner much interest, and take a back page.
 
Pro Patria 72 said:
16 May and we are still going to court , as observers, to this dispicable act.
Click to expand...

Are you going with medals on to send a message that decorated veterans are concerned?
 
Pro Patria 72 said:
Medals and Association Dress! Legion Members present as well, all in uniform and medals.
Click to expand...

Well done!!

As an aside, 80% of what we learn is visual. MAYBE the judge will get the message that we are not taking this lightly.
 
For in the future - if there is any theft of metal memorabilia or cenotaph metals, make sure that the reporting officer lists the theft on http://www.scraptheftalert.com/ .

Every scrapper who owns a shop and who works with the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) will get alerts about theft of this nature and other theft from job sites.

Most of the yards I know of down in Southern Ontario know each other and know how sleezy the other guy can be. Sadly, if one owner makes a stand and decides s/he will not buy (as an example) burned copper wire because of the pollution the seller caused in burning the wire (dioxin aka 'that poisonous stuff in Agent Orange'), the seller will leave and the crooked yard will pick up the stuff.

Over time evolution in the marketplace will get rid of these sleezebag dealers as those people of honour conduct more legitimate business.

Still, make sure it gets reported and good luck in seeking justice through this trial.

-M
 
Not sure if this is the right section of army.ca for this news item; if not, feel free to move it.

I was at the unveiling of this monument last fall; Marc Leger's parents were there, and the CDS, Comds & CWOs of army, navy & air force, etc.  It was a nice ceremony.

I wonder if there's a way to brace things like this so they're harder to topple over? 

Reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/06/28/ottawa-legion-vandalism-inukshuk-toppled.html

An Inukshuk dedicated to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan was toppled over outside the Royal Canadian Legion headquarters in Ottawa.

A vandal knocked over the heavy stone sculpture at the headquarters in the Ottawa neighbourhood of Kanata sometime Wednesday night or early Thursday morning.

It was donated in September by Claire and Richard Leger, the parents of Marc Leger, a soldier killed in the so-called "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan in 2002.

Members of the Royal Canadian Legion in Kanata discovered the toppled Inukshuk Thursday morning. (Waubgeshig Rice/CBC)Bob Butt, the Royal Canadian Legion's director of outreach, said he notified police and also told Leger's parents, who he said were shocked when he told them about the vandalism.

"I think a lot of people take it very personally ... especially those who have lost friends in Afghanistan. I know the Royal Canadian Legion takes it very personally," said Butt.

He is asking the vandals to come forward to face justice.

Reward offered on Twitter
Former star on CBC's The Dragon Den, W. Brett Wilson, tweeted out late Thursday he would reward anyone who would help find the vandals.

"Please RT if you support - I will put up $1,000 as a reward to find vandals who wrecked a soldier's memorial in Ottawa," he wrote.

Veterans Affairs Canada also released a statement on the vandalism. A spokesman for Steven Blaney, minister of Veterans Affairs, called the act "heartless vandalism" and "truly unacceptable".

"The individual or individuals who defaced this statue should be ashamed of themselves. They have dishonoured the men and women who bravely made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of peace, freedom and democracy," said Jean-Christophe de la Rue.
Click to expand...

Edited for spelling
 
Bumped with some of the latest - no further movement forward on a proposed Private Member's Bill making life harder on folks found guilty of damaging war memorials/cenotaphs.

Debate in the House of Commons from yesterday here, more on the proposed bill here.

From the debate, out of the mouth of a Tory MP, maybe explaining why the Liberals and NDP didn't agree to move this one forward?
.... The government moved an amendment at committee, which was accepted, to adjust the maximum penalty under indictment from five years to ten years. This is a technical amendment to keep the bill in line with the rest of the Criminal Code section on mischief. It was suggested by officials of the Minister of Justice and I am grateful for his intervention and support.  It must be pointed out that both opposition parties voted against the government's amendment and against the bill itself at committee. That says to me that they are not interested in seeking to deter individuals from damaging our most honoured places ....
Click to expand...
 
In my opinion it is a mistake to single out some aspects of an activity for special treatment; thus I disapprove of "hate crimes," especially "hate speech." A crime is a crime - the fact that the perpetrator may have some special animus towards the victim doesn't make the crime more or less worthy of punishment. Speech is speech; if it is a lie then there are legal remedies; if it is insulting then it needs to be countered through argument, not law. Mischief and vandalism already exist - a cenotaph doesn't need, or deserve, more protection than, say, a statue of a distinguished poet or politician.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
In my opinion it is a mistake to single out some aspects of an activity for special treatment; thus I disapprove of "hate crimes," especially "hate speech." A crime is a crime - the fact that the perpetrator may have some special animus towards the victim doesn't make the crime more or less worthy of punishment. Speech is speech; if it is a lie then there are legal remedies; if it is insulting then it needs to be countered through argument, not law. Mischief and vandalism already exist - a cenotaph doesn't need, or deserve, more protection than, say, a statue of a distinguished poet or politician.
Click to expand...

To further ERC's sentiments, there is a similarity here with what is going on in the UK at the moment.  Here is a link to a speech on freedom of speech made by Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) in reference to changes to the legislation in the UK.


 

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/rowan-atkinson-england-and-freedom-speech
 
E.R. Campbell said:
In my opinion it is a mistake to single out some aspects of an activity for special treatment; thus I disapprove of "hate crimes," especially "hate speech." A crime is a crime - the fact that the perpetrator may have some special animus towards the victim doesn't make the crime more or less worthy of punishment. Speech is speech; if it is a lie then there are legal remedies; if it is insulting then it needs to be countered through argument, not law. Mischief and vandalism already exist - a cenotaph doesn't need, or deserve, more protection than, say, a statue of a distinguished poet or politician.
Click to expand...

I disagree.  While a crime is a crime some are more disgusting or heinous than others even if they meet the same definition if they are the same crime.  There is a difference between vandalising a cenotaph and vandalising a bus shelter.  Both are vandalism and both are crimes.  But it is what the cenotaph represents that makes it different.  As well as the public reaction to such a thing.  Look what happened with that guy who urinated on the National War Memorial that Canada Day.  Urinating in Public.  That's all he's guilty of.  Yet this forum was rife with comments about placing guards 24/7 and ultimately led to sentries and commissionaires being posted there during the summer months.  Some were calling for far worse than that...

Our justice system is full of examples where we treat crimes that are essentially the same differently.  Murder is murder yet we define it differently based on the situation.  And a lot of that has to do with how society reacts to that.

"Hate crimes" are exactly that.  They need to be singled to show that not only is the crime not acceptable but also that the motive behind is something that deserves special treatment.  Because people who commit those acts justify it in there own set of twisted values which we label as "hate", we must as a society make a statement about that.

 
Crantor said:
Look what happened with that guy who urinated on the National War Memorial that Canada Day.  Urinating in Public.  That's all he's guilty of. 
Click to expand...

This guy claimed ( in 2006 ) "that he was too drunk to realize he was urinating on a war memorial."

But, the judge did not buy it:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2006/08/24/sudbury-urinate.html
 
Crantor said:
I disagree.  While a crime is a crime some are more disgusting or heinous than others even if they meet the same definition if they are the same crime.  There is a difference between vandalising a cenotaph and vandalising a bus shelter.  Both are vandalism and both are crimes.  But it is what the cenotaph represents that makes it different.  As well as the public reaction to such a thing.  Look what happened with that guy who urinated on the National War Memorial that Canada Day.  Urinating in Public.  That's all he's guilty of.  Yet this forum was rife with comments about placing guards 24/7 and ultimately led to sentries and commissionaires being posted there during the summer months.  Some were calling for far worse than that...

Our justice system is full of examples where we treat crimes that are essentially the same differently.  Murder is murder yet we define it differently based on the situation.  And a lot of that has to do with how society reacts to that.

"Hate crimes" are exactly that.  They need to be singled to show that not only is the crime not acceptable but also that the motive behind is something that deserves special treatment.  Because people who commit those acts justify it in there own set of twisted values which we label as "hate", we must as a society make a statement about that.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a very "Black and White - NO SHADES OF GRAY" opinion of the Justice System.  Look at the Courts and the judgments laid down by them.  No two are alike.  The legal system has a punishment for every crime; however, there is no FIXED punishment for each crime, but a range between maximum and minimum punishments, or complete forgiveness, by which a Court can decide.  Life is like that.  No two of us are identical in physique, mental processes, health, wealth, whatever.  No two crimes are identical, nor are their punishments.
 
George Wallace said:
You seem to have a very "Black and White - NO SHADES OF GRAY" opinion of the Justice System.  Look at the Courts and the judgments laid down by them.  No two are alike.  The legal system has a punishment for every crime; however, there is no FIXED punishment for each crime, but a range between maximum and minimum punishments, or complete forgiveness, by which a Court can decide.  Life is like that.  No two of us are identical in physique, mental processes, health, wealth, whatever.  No two crimes are identical, nor are their punishments.
Click to expand...

Um, no.  That's not what I was disagreeing with at all.  Maybe I wasn't clear.  I was disagreeing with E.R. because he said that a crime is a crime and no special distinction or protection should be given to "Hate crime" or vandalism of cenotaphs. 
 
Crantor said:
Um, no.  That's not what I was disagreeing with at all.  Maybe I wasn't clear.  I was disagreeing with E.R. because he said that a crime is a crime and no special distinction or protection should be given to "Hate crime" or vandalism of cenotaphs.
Click to expand...

Ummm?  I am reading ERC as saying the opposite.  The distinction between a "Hate crime" and "vandalism" is not cut and dried.  One can not go calling everything one or the other.  The lines are blurred at times.


Anyway......my head hurts..... :stars:



;D
 
From Parliament: Bill C-217, making it a Criminal Code offence to damage war memorials, passed 3rd Reading in the Commons, 181 to 98, with the NDP opposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bossi
Vandalism
Replies
1
Views
5K
fortuncookie5084
F
Back
Top