Wearing an Ancestor's Medals Mega-thread

[Michael OLeary]

The Canadian practice is not to wear medals that have not been earned and I personally support that tradition.  As my friend Wesley has pointed out, the Australian tradition is different and well received - it just isn't something that I personally find appealling. 

Which doesn't mean the Canadian approach could never change, and it's equally disrespectful for anyone to demonize the alternatives or to use misleading language when discussing the issue.

 

[2551]

I wonder if anyone has researched the reasons why we in Canada made the wearing of "medals you did not win" a crime?

Note that I am making a distinction between "that you did not win" versus "those of an ancestor". 

I have some recollection, but cannot confirm, that this was added to the criminal code because we had to introduce the draft in Canada during WWII.  I believe that some draftees were purchasing and wearing the Voluntary Service Medal, which they were not entitled to (because they had been drafted).  In typical bureaucratic fashion, the law was changed in such a way that it shut the door on everyone, not just the intended target.  Thus the examples I gave in my previous post should all have resulted in some sort of police action (and which no one has so far agreed should have been charged or dealt with).

I am one of those who believe that if you are not going to or cannot enforce the law, then don't have the law.

I suspect that things will change when someone "illegally" wears their ancestors medals and makes a lot of "noise" about it in the press.

Again I ask those opposed:  who or what are you protecting?

I leave it with you.

 

 

[Franko]

I wonder if anyone has researched the reasons why we in Canada made the wearing of "medals you did not win" a crime?

Note that I am making a distinction between "that you did not win" versus "those of an ancestor". 

I have some recollection, but cannot confirm, that this was added to the criminal code because we had to introduce the draft in Canada during WWII.  I believe that some draftees were purchasing and wearing the Voluntary Service Medal, which they were not entitled to (because they had been drafted).  In typical bureaucratic fashion, the law was changed in such a way that it shut the door on everyone, not just the intended target.  Thus the examples I gave in my previous post should all have resulted in some sort of police action (and which no one has so far agreed should have been charged or dealt with).

I am one of those who believe that if you are not going to or cannot enforce the law, then don't have the law.

I suspect that things will change when someone "illegally" wears their ancestors medals and makes a lot of "noise" about it in the press.

Again I ask those opposed:  who or what are you protecting?

I leave it with you.

Okay...I'll give this a go.

First off, you don't "win" a medal, you earn them. I know a few guys wounded in the past few tours and they sure as hell didn't "win" a sacrifice medal, never mind the countless WW2, Korean War vets.

Please don't ever make that mistake again on this site.

As for it being a criminal act, medals are bestowed on the recipient for actions they did willingly, like volunteering to serve represented by the WW2 Volunteer Medal.

Would you like to see some poser wearing a Medal of Bravery or Medal of Valour to a Remembrance Day parade? I liken it to someone spitting in the face of every recipient in the past who earned their medal, some of them posthumously.

I have an uncle who served in the RCN during WW2 and one of his service pins has, stamped on the back, that "if you are not a recipient of this pin you will be charged and sentenced for 6 months and a fine of $600". Bear in mind this was issued in 1946. I believe that it was stamped in this manner to stop draftee posers from wearing them.

The wearing of a medal you didn't earn is an insult to every recipient of that honour, regardless of what you or your family personally thinks.

If you want to do the right thing, get the medals court mounted,gold and nickle dipped (so they don't tarnish) then get a shadow box made so that the medals can be displayed properly. You can get them made with your ancestors service picture in the same frame. Put it in a place of prominence in your home so that others can see it and remember what your family member did for their country.

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

I wonder if anyone has researched the reasons why we in Canada made the wearing of "medals you did not win" a crime?

Perhaps you could simply look into the Laws against the wearing of any Canadian, or Allied Nation's, military uniforms and accoutraments, other than by members of the military.  Medals are accoutraments. 

If you are not now, nor never ever been, a member of the CF, or an Allied Nation's military, then you would be breaking the Law if you wore any part of their military uniform or pieces thereof, if not a Serving Member.

This has been covered in other topics on that very subject.

 

[Michael OLeary]

This thread keeps getting derailed by the inclusion of the phrase "wearing medals one did not earn."  That phrase implies the assumption that the wearing of any medals at any time other than those personally earned are worn only to deceive and to make others believe that they wearer is the original recipient and thus deserving of whatever presumed honour and privilege that means.

For this discussion to have any usefulness, that idea must be set aside.  It is a red herring within the intent of this thread's purpose.

What this thread has been discussing is the possibility of wearing an ancestor's medals, under very specific rules and regulations, not to deceive, but to openly honour the service (and where applicable, the sacrifice) of that ancestor or family member who can no longer wear them him or herself.

This could be done in a number of ways to make it clear to every observer that these are not being worn to deceive.  For example:

- wear on the right breast (as mentioned)
- court-mounting in reverse order, which returns higher (or chronologically earlier) awards to the centre of the chest.
- perhaps mandating that such medals will be court mounted with a band of narrow black ribbon across the ribbons of the mounted medals
- supported by public educational campaign by the Government (or even by the Legion since many of its own members would be so honoured by their descendants, though this may lead to people noticing how many extra "medals" are issued by the Legion itself)

The idea that the wearing of medals to deceive is such a serious concern that this proposal does not even deserve discussion is marrow-minded.  If wearinf of medals in such a way is allowed, it encourages people to bring those medals into public view, to be able to explain who their ancestor was, where they served and what they did in service to our country.  It expands our shared awareness of Canada's military history and our military's contribution to our nation's growth and success.

This can be a positive measure, if we look for ways for it to be so and isolate the little things we don't like to find ways to mitigate them for a mutually beneficial result.

 

[mariomike]

If you are not now, nor never ever been, a member of the CF, or an Allied Nation's military, then you would be breaking the Law if you wore any part of their military uniform or pieces thereof, if not a Serving Member.

I wish I had a loonie for every time I've seen that on Yonge Street over the years. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

If you are not now, nor never ever been, a member of the CF, or an Allied Nation's military, then you would be breaking the Law if you wore any part of their military uniform or pieces thereof, if not a Serving Member.

I wish I had a loonie for every time I've seen that on Yonge Street over the years. 

To be clear about this interpretation of the Criminal Code, note the requirement for the similarity to be effective enough to deceive.  The wearing of surplus cast-offs doesn't count.

Unlawful use of military uniforms or certificates

419. Every one who without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him,

(a) wears a uniform of the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force or a uniform that is so similar to the uniform of any of those forces that it is likely to be mistaken therefor,

(b) wears a distinctive mark relating to wounds received or service performed in war, or a military medal, ribbon, badge, chevron or any decoration or order that is awarded for war services, or any imitation thereof, or any mark or device or thing that is likely to be mistaken for any such mark, medal, ribbon, badge, chevron, decoration or order,

(c) has in his possession a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card from the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force that has not been issued to and does not belong to him, or

(d) has in his possession a commission or warrant or a certificate of discharge, certificate of release, statement of service or identity card, issued to an officer or a person in or who has been in the Canadian Forces or any other naval, army or air force, that contains any alteration that is not verified by the initials of the officer who issued it, or by the initials of an officer thereto lawfully authorized,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 377.

LINK

Also, sub-paragraph (B) is the item that would require amendment if any proposal to allow the wear of ancestors' medals for memorial purposes could be allowed.

 

[ModlrMike]

According to an historian friend of mine, this section of the Criminal Code was proglamated shortly after WWI due to the large numbers of frauds claiming benefits or honours not due them. This certainly makes sense given the language law ie:"likely to be mistaken".


Perhaps it's time for a quiet ammendment to this section that permits the wearing of ancestors medals at remembrance services.

 

[2551]

First off, you don't "win" a medal, you earn them. I know a few guys wounded in the past few tours and they sure as hell didn't "win" a sacrifice medal, never mind the countless WW2, Korean War vets.

Please don't ever make that mistake again on this site.


[/quote]

Well, sir, it seems that you and I are talking about two different things.  When I refer to a "medal", I am not referring to what is commonly referred to as a "campaign" medal - and I am not talking about the new system of awards to those who are wounded.  I am referring to medals issued for valour.  It is quite common to refer to someone as having "won" a VC, or a DCM. 
With regard to your friends who were wounded and received a medal - you are right - they did not win them. If you want to pronounce that medals are "earned" rather than "won", then bully for you. 

Perhaps it would have been wiser and a more mature action for you to have sought clarification before you issued this warning.  Or perhaps that is asking or expecting too much?  In either event it matters little.

 

[Franko]

First off, you don't "win" a medal, you earn them. I know a few guys wounded in the past few tours and they sure as hell didn't "win" a sacrifice medal, never mind the countless WW2, Korean War vets.

Please don't ever make that mistake again on this site.




Well, sir, it seems that you and I are talking about two different things.  When I refer to a "medal", I am not referring to what is commonly referred to as a "campaign" medal - and I am not talking about the new system of awards to those who are wounded.  I am referring to medals issued for valour.  It is quite common to refer to someone as having "won" a VC, or a DCM. 
With regard to your friends who were wounded and received a medal - you are right - they did not win them. If you want to pronounce that medals are "earned" rather than "won", then bully for you. 

Perhaps it would have been wiser and a more mature action for you to have sought clarification before you issued this warning.  Or perhaps that is asking or expecting too much?  In either event it matters little.

And with that...you are now on the ramp.

Regards

 

[1feral1]

Hi all, I'll briefly weigh in here beofe I head off to the TV and bed. Its a crappy cold damp late autumn night here, hovering around 18C.

My 2 bob about medals overall. Firstly, I have 5 (3 Aussie, and 2 Canuck), and I am about to get my 6th Aussie gong shortly.

There is a difference between wearing them on the left and right.

Those 'impersonating' would be considered being worn on the left, while those wearing them in remberance on ANZAC Day or 11 Nov, or Long Tan Day (19 Aug) wear them on the right. Two seperate issues folks, two seperate issues. Australia has harsh penalties for such fraudsters, and this includes publically naming them in the media and on related websites.

I view my gongs as being earned, especially my Australian Active Service Medal (w/Iraq Clasp), Iraq Campaign Medal, and my Army Combat Badge. I did not win anything, but Commonwealth army slang has this term 'won/win' usually used when it comes to awards of bravery or valour and this at least goes back to WW1.

The term to win or won a medal is commonly used here, and when I did a search on this site using just 'won vc', I ended up with 4 pages of posts from threads here on army.ca in regards to the overal topic. If anyone wants, please feel free to so this search on here, and look for yourselves.

I have a good mate that 'won' an Australia Bravery Medal as an SASR Tpr, and another long time mate back in Canada who 'won' a SMV in Afghanistan. I am both humbled and proud to have served with both of these men.

Regards to all,

Wes

 

[Michael OLeary]

The following is taken from a post on the Great War Forum, which I believe provides a relevant view describing two people who personally suffered loss:

Just as British school children go to Ypres and the Somme, French and German children go to Verdun for much the same reason. When we were there in 2001 there were two separate French groups and one German. plus of course any number of private tourists; we got to know a German lady at the hostel we shared whose grandfather was missing in action in the area. we went together to the cemetery on the outskirts of the city beside the road leading up to the battlefields. walking around we drifted apart and she was near to an older French woman who had come to visit her grandfather's grave, possibly for the last time given her apparent age. the old lady suddenly burst into tears and it was the German woman who, without a word spoken, reached out and embraced her. after a while they went back to town together and when we returned we happened to find them sharing dinner. it seemed unconscionably rude to interrupt but i would like to think that they had found a common ground amidst a shared tragedy.

At what point does emotion move from societal hatred for a long dead enemy, and into shared remembrance of the sacrifice of family members without regard for colour of uniform?

 

[OpieRWestmrR]

At what point does emotion move from societal hatred for a long dead enemy, and into shared remembrance of the sacrifice of family members without regard for colour of uniform?

Well framed!

I guess the feeling in wider society depends mainly on two things: the society's political conviction and the attitude of its living veterans.

If the enemy was thoroughly demonised during wartime the enmity can become part of social fabric - I'm thinking of how some Islamic rhetoric dates back to the crusades. Under those circumstances it would be very difficult to 'forgive' a former enemy to the point of shared remembrance. The enemy remains the enemy forever.

Otherwise, once a war is over and propaganda stops, where does the public get its attitude from? Memory, as a sort of default, modified over time by what returning veterans have to say. The more veterans there are, the greater their influence.

If veterans felt they had fought a 'professional' war - North Africa, for instance - reconciliation to the idea of a shared ordeal might be fairly quick among them, and they would give civilians that impression.

I don't see that happening among veterans of the Eastern Front. War in the Pacific 1939-45 doesn't see much sharing even though Japan and the US are now very close politically and economically.

The wave of pacifism after the Great War was striking in popular literature on both sides. Germans resented reparations but I think people took the idea of joint remembrance of an unrepeatable horror more seriously than the potential for another global war. Then along came the Nazis which sort of kills my premise. Can't do what Hitler did without popular support.

Guerrilla war you might expect to be different, but views on Vietnam and greater southeast Asia seem close to the point of shared remembrance. Maybe that has to do with the very negative public attitudes in the West during the war. That made coming home a bitter experience for Australian veterans but many of them go to Vietnam on humanitarian missions now.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Well framed!

I guess the feeling in wider society depends mainly on two things: the society's political conviction and the attitude of its living veterans.

If the enemy was thoroughly demonised during wartime the enmity can become part of social fabric - I'm thinking of how some Islamic rhetoric dates back to the crusades. Under those circumstances it would be very difficult to 'forgive' a former enemy to the point of shared remembrance. The enemy remains the enemy forever.

Otherwise, once a war is over and propaganda stops, where does the public get its attitude from? Memory, as a sort of default, modified over time by what returning veterans have to say. The more veterans there are, the greater their influence.

I'm not certain it's the collective word of the veteran as much as it is the outspoken minority followed by an echo of sympathetic repetition in subsequent analysis by journalist/authors and academics.  How often do we see it stated that so many veterans seldom spoke of their time at war.  What we have heard is not a collective voice that can be judged with certainty as a majority view (regardless of what the agencies who claim to speak for the "silent majority" claim).

Instead we are left with a singular opinions (lions led by donkeys; acceptability of the bomber campaign, etc.) which have been consistently followed by a simplified drumbeat of support that drowns out any challenging viewpoint - even to the extent of alternate views being risked as academic suicide at times if proposed in theses or published works.

The propaganda does not stop at the ceasefire, it changes shape, origin and target - but it certainly does not cease.

If veterans felt they had fought a 'professional' war - North Africa, for instance - reconciliation to the idea of a shared ordeal might be fairly quick among them, and they would give civilians that impression.

I don't see that happening among veterans of the Eastern Front. War in the Pacific 1939-45 doesn't see much sharing even though Japan and the US are now very close politically and economically.

The wave of pacifism after the Great War was striking in popular literature on both sides. Germans resented reparations but I think people took the idea of joint remembrance of an unrepeatable horror more seriously than the potential for another global war. Then along came the Nazis which sort of kills my premise. Can't do what Hitler did without popular support.

Guerrilla war you might expect to be different, but views on Vietnam and greater southeast Asia seem close to the point of shared remembrance. Maybe that has to do with the very negative public attitudes in the West during the war. That made coming home a bitter experience for Australian veterans but many of them go to Vietnam on humanitarian missions now.

And yet, if some of these groups can find reconciliation and mutual support, then why is it that populations thousands of miles from the point of conflict and generations later that continue to foster this sense of societal "hatred"?

How is it that we can have people say that the entire Airborne Regiment should not have been branded and punished for the actions of two soldiers (as limited as that view might be), yet the actions of the SS will forever condemn every German soldier and his heritage?

 

[OpieRWestmrR]

I'm not certain it's the collective word of the veteran as much as it is the outspoken minority followed by an echo of sympathetic repetition in subsequent analysis by journalist/authors and academics.  How often do we see it stated that so many veterans seldom spoke of their time at war.  What we have heard is not a collective voice that can be judged with certainty as a majority view (regardless of what the agencies who claim to speak for the "silent majority" claim).

Instead we are left with a singular opinions (lions led by donkeys; acceptability of the bomber campaign, etc.) which have been consistently followed by a simplified drumbeat of support that drowns out any challenging viewpoint - even to the extent of alternate views being risked as academic suicide at times if proposed in theses or published works.

The propaganda does not stop at the ceasefire, it changes shape, origin and target - but it certainly does not cease.

What I mean by 'propaganda' is the systematic campaign to recruit public opinion to a war effort: posters in defence plants, movies, radio programs, news bulletins. After the shooting stopped that campaign ceased to be pervasive and exclusive. It became possible to publish anti-war literature and screen All Quiet on the Western Front in Allied nations. After all, former enemies had to do business together to rebuild the world economy.  After 1939-45 the Marshall Plan had to gain political traction. Some shibboleths remain today in cheap entertainment - don't get me started on Saving Private Ryan or U505 - but I don't think we can call it deliberate cultivation of hatred. Popular entertainment can be very sympathetic towards the enemy.

I agree about the power of vocal minorities. I know from personal experience how media thrives on controversy. It's easy to make debate over a complex and bloody business last forever particularly if there's a sniff of incompetence and cover-up. However, I also believe the men who survived made their feelings towards the enemy quite clear to their families no matter how little detail they offered.

I think it's possible to despise your own wartime leadership and at the same time continue to hate the enemy. Families of casualties would inevitably hold the enemy responsible, adding to the inertia of hatred. In Germany the Kaiser was deposed and E M Remarque published his classic (1928), yet people were ready and willing for a rematch under Hitler inside a decade (Rhineland 1936).

...yet the actions of the SS will forever condemn every German soldier and his heritage?

I find most people in Australia think the SS was some kind of secret police, separate from the German field forces and tasked with atrocities. Their attitude towards Germans is much less fraught than towards the Japanese. But Australians never fought SS units, which may support my notion of a 'clean' war making a difference. It would be interesting to know how Canadians feel about the Japanese, given so few of our people fought against them on the ground or suffered as PWs.

 

[mariomike]

It is quite common to refer to someone as having "won" a VC, or a DCM.

Copy/paste from Milnet home page:
"Today in Military History 
April 25
1915:
VC won by Capt Francis Alexander Caron Scrimger, Canadian Army Medical Corps attached to the 14th Battalion, CEF, Ypres, France."

 

[Michael OLeary]

The term "winning" (of certain medals) is common, although arguably incorrect, usage.  It's certainly not worth a continuing derailment of this thread's purpose.

 

[1feral1]

Well, after still suffering from a not-so-nice hangover, I thought I'd post this pic of someone wearing medals on the right.  Taken not long before the ANZAC Day march yesterday, on Bribie Island.

This pic speaks for itself. The bloke closest is wearing his own (Viet Nam Vet) on the left, a relative's WW2 medals - perhaps his Dad's) on the right, and his daughter is wearing her own ADM (also on the left).

Examine closely, others are also wearing them on both sides.

Remember, there is a difference between wearing them on the left and right. This form of honour and rememberance is common place here, its a part of our culture and heritage. This exemplifies the ANZAC spirit which is openly carried on from one generation to another.  This is a 180 degree difference from Canada. Thats just how it is.

Regards,

OWDU

 

[geo]

It would be interesting to know how Canadians feel about the Japanese, given so few of our people fought against them on the ground or suffered as PWs

.
http://www.museedelaguerre.ca/cwm/exhibitions/chrono/1931japan_e.shtml
Canada responded to the outbreak of war with Japan by significantly strengthening its Pacific coastal defences, ultimately stationing more than 30,000 troops, 14 air force squadrons, and over 20 warships in British Columbia. Canadian forces also co-operated with the United States in clearing the Japanese from the Aleutian islands off Alaska. Before Japan surrendered in August 1945, a Canadian cruiser, H.M.C.S. Uganda, participated in Pacific naval operations, two Royal Canadian Air Force (R.C.A.F.) transport squadrons flew supplies in India and Burma, and communications specialists served in Australia.

I would say that the soldiers of the Winnipeg Grenadiers & the Royal Rifles of Canada who fought in Hong Kong & survived the labour camps of Japan feel pretty hard about the Japanese.  Their treatment was brutal with a capital "B". 

 

[Journeyman]

I would say that the soldiers of the Winnipeg Grenadiers & the Royal Rifles of Canada who fought in Hong Kong & survived the labour camps of Japan feel pretty hard about the Japanese.

Next time you're watching The Bridge on the River Kwai, know that there are a lot of graves with a maple leaf and those regiment's names on them in the Commonwealth War Cemetery beside the bridge in Kanchanaburi Thailand.

Yes, there really is a Bridge on the River Kwai, and it wasn't just Alec Guinness who built it.



* Actually, I just posted that link to get the "Colonel Bogey March" stuck in your heads