Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

[Infanteer]

So they did not look a the form, simmilar to a will, to see who next of kin was?

Are you also saying, that by the three spaces I could my name down each time?  That there is a possibilty, that had I still served, I could nominate myself, and be awarded it posthumously?  And no one knows this?

No - because it is a command responsibility, directed from higher, to have these reviewed to ensure they are both up to date (no ex-girlfriends or the like) and that any irregularities are addressed (Nobody put down, next of kin ignored, etc).  This way, if something happens there won't be a national bunfight over Memorial Crosses.

Why is that so hard to understand?

As Aviator said, ditto back.  The criteria are spelled out in black and white, and it takes 30 seconds of thought to see what kind of effect moving the criteria would have.  We could have called the thing the "Victoria Cross" and the situation would have been the same - criteria covers a specific condition that wasn't meant in these instances.

Anyways, this is rapidly entering the spin-cycle and I'm going to recommend a lock as the line of scrimmage has been set and I don't see any movement in the future.

 

[HItorMiss]

You know what MediPea has raised a point even I over looked...

Why is it now that it is a medal do people feel that the criteria needs to be changed. Why is now that those families or even vets have raised an issue with it? That is actually causing me a great deal of thought....

 

[the 48th regulator]

You know what MediPea has raised a point even I over looked...

Why is it now that the it is a medal do people feel that the criteria needs to be changed. Why is now that those families or even vets have raised an issue with it? That is actually causing me a great deal of thought....

Timing of the issue of the medal?

Until it was, the criteria and even the look was a mystery.

dileas

tess

 

[HItorMiss]

Maybe I am a sinic

But I sort of believe that when it was "just" a piece of cloth no one cared. But now that it's a shiney it's suddenly important.

 

[Armymedic]

when it was "just" a piece of cloth no one cared. But now that it's a shiney it's suddenly important.

Regardless, this is one award I never want to recieve or be given to my family.

Perhaps it is the name of the award needs to change.

 

[HItorMiss]

No Prairie Dog you sure don't

We shouldn't have to change the name to avoid an argument based on a semantic, The criteria is set, the same criteria as the Wound Stripe except you can noe recieve it posthumoulsy. Perhpas removing that would settle the argument.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Maybe I am a sinic

But I sort of believe that when it was "just" a piece of cloth no one cared. But now that it's a shiney it's suddenly important.

I said it once on this thread, and I will say it again, read my ake on why no one cared about the stripe.  It was no one knew about it.

dileas

tess

 

[HItorMiss]

I will agree the public didn't and you now what I was happy they didn't. I could careless what the public thought of my piece of cloth because I knew what it ment when I saw a soldier with one and I know what it means now.

 

[RHFC_piper]

I will agree the public didn't and you now what I was happy they didn't. I could careless what the public thought of my piece of cloth because I knew what it meant when I saw a soldier with one and I know what it means now.

Heh... I get asked, all the time, if it is some kind of "time in" badge... like a 5 year stripe or something.


As for the ongoing debate here; I have to agree with BM on this...  The criteria has been set based on the Wound Stripe with the addition of posthumus award... If everyone was handed the medal because they were injured during operation, then it would severely reduce the meaning and sentiment behind it. 
And, I agree that the only reason why anyone seems to care about this now is because now its a gong and not a piece of cloth...  What would have happened if they had changed the criteria for the wound stripe to include posthumus award?  Would anyone fight this hard for a bit of gold string on an inch of cloth? 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that this medal is a knee-jerk reaction to public sentiment brought forward to politicians looking at their approval ratings... I appreciate the sentiment, but quite honestly, I could think of a few other things that would help support wounded members more than a gong... I will gladly give up my wound stripe and/or sacrifice medal for a better quality of medical care, cause, again quite honestly, what I would characterize as when my sacrifice started was when I got home to an unprepared medical and support system.

I also agree with all who have stated the Sacrifice Medal is misnamed.   It eludes to the concept that it is for anyone and everyone who personally feels they have sacrificed something... Everyone who deploys sacrifices something in some way... but where is the line? 
Perhaps it is just a poor choice of name which has caused all the issues.

Either way, I still have to sympathize with the families of soldiers who have died in operation and do not meet the criteria for the medal.  I couldn't even imagine how much they feel they have sacrificed, and I understand the want to be included in this recognition, but there is a criteria for a reason... 


Personally, I think, if they really wanted to update the wound stripe, they should have just kept the stripe and gone back to the origins of it and made it out of brass/gold metal instead of a chunk of cloth... there; tradition and bling.

 

[dapaterson]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that this medal is a knee-jerk reaction to public sentiment brought forward to politicians looking at their approval ratings... I

Make that "brought forward by the (then) CDS without any consideration of issues such as this" and you'll be on target.

 

[RHFC_piper]

Make that "brought forward by the (then) CDS without any consideration of issues such as this" and you'll be on target.

I seem to recall a large group of MPs, MPPs and families of wounded soldiers bringing forward the idea of the "crimson maple leaf"...  I was even asked to participate in their efforts to push the idea forward (this was shortly after I came home, 2006)...  I declined.

So if this medal is solely the efforts of the CDS, then it was parallel to many other efforts to accomplish the same thing. 



More links to crimson maple leaf:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060921/medals_wounded_060921/
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080829/national/new_medal


More on the Sacrifice Medal:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/08/29/6611426-cp.html

 

[The Bread Guy]

Jumping on the political bandwagon alert! 

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Sask premier wants GG to award medal to soldiers killed in accidents
John Cotter, Canadian Press via Canoe.ca, 24 Sept 08
Article link

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is calling on Ottawa to change its policy on when to award a new medal created to honour soldiers who die or are wounded as a direct result of hostile action in dangerous places such as Afghanistan.

Since the Sacrifice Medal was introduced last month, the families of some soldiers who have died in accidents in the conflict zone have complained that the military has told them that their loved ones don't qualify for the honour.

Wall has asked Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean in a letter to reverse the decision and cited the case of Master Corporal Jeffrey Scott Walsh of Regina who died in August 2006 in an accidental shooting while on patrol in Kandahar.

"To my mind, the origin of the fatal bullet is in no way germane to the one central fact: Master Corporal Walsh died serving his country in a combat theatre," Wall wrote. "He made the ultimate sacrifice for you and me, for our country and in the selfless service of others. He should be eligible for the Sacrifice Medal.

"I respectfully request on behalf of the Province of Saskatchewan, the Walsh family and in the memory of this Canadian hero, this decision be reversed."

The silver medal has the image of the Queen on one side and is backed with a representation of the statue that forms part of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial in France, along with the inscription "Sacrifice".

When Jean announced the new medal on Aug. 29, she said that soldiers deserve the utmost respect and deepest gratitude of Canadians and that the award recognizes the valued contribution of those who sacrifice their health or lives while serving Canada.

An official at the Governor General's office referred questions about the Sacrifice Medal to Defence Department officials, who were not immediately available for comment.

Wall said he hopes his letter will prompt other Canadians to contact the Governor General and the federal government about changing the policy.

"Here is an opportunity to make improvements to the Sacrifice Medal," he said. "We hope making the letter public will encourage others who may want to help. We would like to see Canadians make this suggestion."

Ben Walsh said he was heartened by Wall's letter and it hurt being told by the military that his son wasn't eligible for the award.

Walsh said such a change would be important to his son's widow and three children and the families of other soldiers who died while serving in Afghanistan.

"I think when a young soldier gives his or her life for their Canada it is the least the government and the Governor General's office can do," said Walsh, whose living room is filled with pictures of his son in his uniform along with a display case of copies of the medals that his son did receive.

"It is time for the Governor General of Canada to speak out."

Parents of three Nova Scotia soldiers who died in Afghanistan in accidents have also said they want to know why their sons don't qualify for the Sacrifice Medal.

An expert on the military suggested that it would be helpful if Canadians understood why the military considers it to be important to have a medal that is awarded specifically to soldiers who are killed or wounded on the battlefield.

Jack Granatstein said soldiers who are involved in hostile action against an enemy have the highest status in the military.

Canadian soldiers wounded in action were once allowed to wear a special stripe on the sleeve of their uniform. In the United States, military soldiers who are killed or wounded in action receive the Purple Heart.

"Someone who is wounded or killed in action is entitled to recognition of a kind that someone who is killed in a car accident or killed by friendly fire is not," said Granatstein, an historian who is a member of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

"It is an indication that they have faced the most severe test that soldiers face - coming under fire and dealing with the enemy."

 

[armyvern]

Jumping on the political bandwagon alert! 
...

"To my mind, the origin of the fatal bullet is in no way germane to the one central fact: Master Corporal Walsh died serving his country in a combat theatre," Wall wrote. "He made the ultimate sacrifice for you and me, for our country and in the selfless service of others. He should be eligible for the Sacrifice Medal.

Geez, I'd say. Here we go again. NO WHERE in the criteria does it state "Combat Theatre". That is NOT a pre-requisite. It says "Hostile Intent". Period. Full Stop. Germane to THE central fact regarding eligibility is "Hostile Intent" which occurs on UN Tours (note: these are not classed as "combat zones") as well (ask Tess, ask the widow of Paeta Huss Von Kreudner - as a couple of examples) ... death due to an accidental (or negligent) discharge is NOT hostile Intent - no matter where it occurs. Combat theatre, in Canada, on a UN tour - NO "Hostile Intent" equals not eligible.

I really hate to point out that some of the families are, on the one hand, arguing "don't charge the guy who had the ND as it was an accident and he didn't mean to kill my loved one", but on the other hand (ie Now) are arguing that there somehow WAS "hostile intent" involved for purposes of this medal.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Geez, I'd say. Here we go again. NO WHERE in the criteria does it state "Combat Theatre". That is NOT a pre-requisite. It says "Hostile Intent". Period. Full Stop. Germane to THE central fact regarding eligibility is "Hostile Intent" which occurs on UN Tours (note: these are not classed as "combat zones") as well (ask Tess, ask the widow of Paeta Huss Von Kreudner - as a couple of examples) ... death due to an accidental (or negligent) discharge is NOT hostile Intent - no matter where it occurs. Combat theatre, in Canada, on a UN tour - NO "Hostile Intent" equals not eligible.

I really hate to point out that some of the families are, on the one hand, arguing "don't charge the guy who had the ND as it was an accident and he didn't mean to kill my loved one", but on the other hand (ie Now) are arguing that there somehow WAS "hostile intent" involved for purposes of this medal.

No Vern,

They are arguing that their son's death was a Sacrifice, that should be recognized.

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

No Vern,

They are arguing that their son's death was a Sacrifice, that should be recognized because he died in a combat theatre. (my addition).

dileas

tess

They have added "Combat Theatre" to the arguement Tess. Read the comment that I quoted. "That he died in a combat theatre serving his country is germane to the argument". <--- Not my words.

Tell me, just what is the "difference" between their son's Sacrifice to his country due to an ND, and that of the young Cpl killed by an ND here in Gagetown years ago?

That their son was in a "combat theatre"? Does their son deserve it more because he was killed by an ND in a "Combat Theatre"? Seems to me that "expanding" the criteria to include "combat theatre" is NOT going to solve the issue on iota is it? What about my friend Mike Abel killed by an ND in Somalia? That wasn't a "combat theatre" and it wasn't "Hostile Intent". So he doesn't qualify either. Now we are seeing "combat theatre" get added. That's NOT a criteria. Their son does not, just as my friend, does NOT meet the criteria.

Changing the criteria to include their son may make them happy, but it won't make the parents of those killed by NDs in "non-combat theatres" or "in Canada" happy will it? Why would their sons sacrifice not be worth the same as their sons?

It only moves the hurt onto someone else and someone else's family.

There's a criteria. It was valid and not questioned for the Wound Stripe and no one complained, but now that it's a medal ... apparently it's (the criteria) no longer "acceptable". I have BIG issues with that.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Vern,

Not to sound redundant, but George's thread, address' alot of this.

The name of the medal, does not follow the language of the the criteria.

Hence the confusion, and angst by the family, loved ones, and the general public.

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

Vern,

Not to sound redundant, but George's thread, address' alot of this.

The name of the medal, does not follow the language of the the criteria.

Hence the confusion, and angst by the family, loved ones, and the general public.

dileas

tess

The name is not appropriate, but changing the name will STILL not make their son "entitled" so they STILL won't be happy.

The "name" is a strawman arguement, at best; let's all face the facts right now - the complaints are coming from people whose loved ones do not qualify as per the "hostile intent" criteria --- and that is why they are upset.

 

[the 48th regulator]

The name is not appropriate, but changing the name will STILL not make their son "entitled" so they STILL won't be happy.

The "name" is a strawman arguement, at best; let's all face the facts right now - the complaints are coming from people whose loved ones do not qualify as per the "hostile intent" criteria --- and that is why they are upset.

Sacrifice Medal.

As I said many many posts ago.

When people look at my Wound stripe what language sounds better.

"I was injured over seas"  or "I was wounded over seas"

A guy walks into the MIR and is limping.  When asked he says

"I was injured on a run"  or "I was wounded on a run"

Both of us have made a sacrifice, however language distingusishes the two situations

This may be a Strawman's argument, but the name of the medal is misleading, therefore the strawman's argument is not actually what it is.  It further proves that this medal, although the intent is good, was not well thought out.

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

Both of us have made a sacrifice, however language distingusishes the two situations

This may be a Strawman's argument, but the name of the medal is misleading, therefore the strawman's argument is not actually what it is.  It further proves that this medal, although the intent is good, was not well thought out.

dileas

tess

That's right. Language differentiates between the two situations. In this case, the language is "Hostile Intent" that differentiates just as it ALWAYS has ...

But now, suddenly, the criteria/name were not well thought out.

Sorry, but changing the name will NOT fix the complaints. Neither will changing a criteria that was prefectly acceptable for years.

 

[the 48th regulator]

That's right. Language differentiates between the two situations. In this case, the language is "Hostile Intent" that differentiates just as it ALWAYS has ...

But now, suddenly, the criteria/name were not well thought out.

Sorry, but changing the name will NOT fix the complaints. Neither will changing a criteria that was prefectly acceptable for years.

To you Vern it may not, because you understand the criteria.  However, the name of the medal has brought on this argument, and because of that, the criteria is being attacked.

Had this been named anything else, that would match the criteria, we would not see this.  You even alluded to this with regards to the Wounded Stripe many times on the threads.

dileas

tess