Canada 150th Anniversary of Confederation Medal

[CCCB]

Having lurked these forum for many years, I am fairly confident I know what the response will be; however, I did a search and turned up no results on the subject.

What are everyone's thoughts on the government's decision to not continue the tradition of issuing a commemorative medal on the occasion of the nation's 150th Anniversary next year? 

The Centennial medal (1967) was issued by a Liberal government, with the 125th (1992) medal being issued by a Conservative government.  Sounds bipartisan enough?  What makes the 150th different?

Let's spare the 'Why isn't the Army buying boots?!?!' or 'The Jubilee medals were unfairly administered!!!!' comments if we can, since these awards are not administered by the military until they're approved in the first place, which the 150th hasn't been.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Fair enough.  Personally, I don't feel the need for a meaningless "gimmie" medal for myself.

 

[Lightguns]

67 was a general issue, 92 was issued to generals, LOL.  Seriously, who cares, they should have one every 100 years and that's it.  The centennial was fine and correct, the 125 was political. 

 

[George Wallace]

Well......Speculation did start way back in 2011:

"Fiasco" is such a... well... appropriate word.

On the plus side, we've also got 2017 to look forward to, for the "Canada 150" medal that will go alongside the Canada 125 medal, no doubt.

 

[Journeyman]

Having lurked these forum for many years, I am fairly confident I know what the response will be; however.....

I'm curious what you believe the response will be.... and why  (I'm inquisitive that way)    op:

 

[kratz]

Maybe the government doesn't want Justin Beiber to wear more bling than elected officials after the 150 celebration.  [

 

[CCCB]

I'm curious what you believe the response will be.... and why  (I'm inquisitive that way)    op:

Well, as with any long-standing forums with a small-ish but dedicated membership who are all from (broadly) the same societal demographic (in this case the military), people tend to hold similar opinions and values.  That creates a bit of an echo chamber.  The majority of posts from the Diamond Jubilee thread exemplify what I was referring to:

Generally:

- "This is a waste of money, I want boots!!!"

- "I don't care about tradition, the army needs to focus on modernizing!!!!"

- "The buttons and bows brigade are at it again!!!!"

- "These medals are badly administered!  When I was a Cpl only the CO, RSM and his homies got them!!!"

And variations thereof, etc, etc. 

Since it appears the medal is not being awarded, we can all agree it isn't a waste of money.  I would contend that it wouldn't be a waste of money if it were awarded, and no, I don't need a "gimme medal" either.  I'm just acutely aware of a tradition being snuffed for what appears to be a political reason. 

It also bears mentioning that everything "buttons and bows" comes from a separate pot of money than boots (or the B fleet, or any number of our collective procurement ailments....), and is executed by a separate branch within the staff system.  I've never understood the chorus of calls for "re-prioritization" here when a topic similar to this comes up, as if a large enterprise such as defence can't have simultaneous and independent priorities.

I was curious what people's thoughts were on the rationale behind that decision (when the history of Centennial medals would suggest they are bipartisan), and was hoping we could move beyond the usual talking points.

 

[Lightguns]

All money comes from the taxpayer, regardless of which pot our political masters put the money in.  Like I said, 100 years is fine.  Every 25 years IS a waste of money, regardless of where the money comes from.

 

[Ludoc]

Having lurked these forum for many years, I am fairly confident I know what the response will be; however, I did a search and turned up no results on the subject.

What are everyone's thoughts on the government's decision to not continue the tradition of issuing a commemorative medal on the occasion of the nation's 150th Anniversary next year? 

The Centennial medal (1967) was issued by a Liberal government, with the 125th (1992) medal being issued by a Conservative government.  Sounds bipartisan enough?  What makes the 150th different?

I hardly think doing something twice in 150 years constitutes a tradition.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well, as with any long-standing forums with a small-ish but dedicated membership who are all from (broadly) the same societal demographic (in this case the military), people tend to hold similar opinions and values.  That creates a bit of an echo chamber.  The majority of posts from the Diamond Jubilee thread exemplify what I was referring to:

Generally:

- "This is a waste of money, I want boots!!!"

- "I don't care about tradition, the army needs to focus on modernizing!!!!"

- "The buttons and bows brigade are at it again!!!!"

- "These medals are badly administered!  When I was a Cpl only the CO, RSM and his homies got them!!!"

And variations thereof, etc, etc. 

Since it appears the medal is not being awarded, we can all agree it isn't a waste of money.  I would contend that it wouldn't be a waste of money if it were awarded, and no, I don't need a "gimme medal" either.  I'm just acutely aware of a tradition being snuffed for what appears to be a political reason. 

It also bears mentioning that everything "buttons and bows" comes from a separate pot of money than boots (or the B fleet, or any number of our collective procurement ailments....), and is executed by a separate branch within the staff system.  I've never understood the chorus of calls for "re-prioritization" here when a topic similar to this comes up, as if a large enterprise such as defence can't have simultaneous and independent priorities.

I was curious what people's thoughts were on the rationale behind that decision (when the history of Centennial medals would suggest they are bipartisan), and was hoping we could move beyond the usual talking points.

Seeing as you've been around here for a while and have observed the usual tone and content, I am curious as to why you thought you might get different responses than you see here.

 

[dapaterson]

I hardly think doing something twice in 150 years constitutes a tradition.

Clearly, you're not in the Navy.  >

 

[CCCB]

Seeing as you've been around here for a while and have observed the usual tone and content, I am curious as to why you thought you might get different responses than you see here.

Why endeavor to have a constructive, structured discussion on something pertinent to the members of this forums?

 

[CombatMacguyver]

Fair enough.  Personally, I don't feel the need for a meaningless "gimmie" medal for myself.

I.... I.... wouldn't mind one....  [

[

 

[George Wallace]

Why endeavor to have a constructive, structured discussion on something pertinent to the members of this forums?

???

Ah!  It is only a constructive, structured discussion if the members of the forum feel it is as pertinent as you do.  I understand.  Finding the idea frivolous, trivial and a waste of time and resources does not fall into an acceptable form of discussion in your eyes. 

 

[Remius]

The last few commemorative medals caused nothing but derision, division and sadly lowered the worth of those medals by the way they were handed out.  If anything, the CAF has proven that it isn't mature enough to come up with a merit based system worth anyone's salt to hand these out.  Some people did indeed deserve them but because of how they were divided up (gender, time in rank or whatever) the whole thing became a laughing stock.

If the CAF wants commemorative medals make them CAF specific and with specific criteria. 

Ex: Vimy 100th commemorative medal.  All serving army and air force personnel actively serving on the anniversary date of the battle of Vimy Ridge, or all Army and Airforce members currently serving in units with Vimy battle honour (medal can only be worn while serving with said unit).  Or whatever.

Trying to make these commemorative medals merit based opens too many cans of worms.

Or make them available for purchase and people can buy them as keep sakes not to be worn on uniforms. 

Or coins, why can't we just get coins.

Overall though I'm not too worked up about the Liberal's decision to axe this.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I.... I.... wouldn't mind one....  [

[

NP mate, I won't hold it against you.  :nod:

 

[Journeyman]

I was curious what people's thoughts were on the rationale behind that decision ....and was hoping we could move beyond the usual talking points.

I'm afraid those are mutually exclusive hopes, given that a significant percentage of people here apparently disagree with you.  You don't want to hear from them -- the "echo chamber" -- you want to hear from people who agree that we need to create more meaningless bling. 

This is apparently more critical since you believe 'traditions are being snuffed'.... based on politics.... especially in the realm of uniform accoutrements.  Somehow, despite being a long-time lurker, you've missed discussions on new/old rank badges, Div patches, etc, etc (plus that rockin' 1812 pin, although that doesn't qualify as a heartlessly crushed tradition, merely a waste of effort).


But if you want a non-echo chamber point, I'd offer that the only  reason for not going ahead with this medal would be to avoid upsetting some special-interest group:  Anyone who sees this as smacking of militarism?  Québec?  :dunno:  It certainly isn't because the Liberals have suddenly discovered fiscal responsibility.

 

[Lightguns]

I'm afraid those are mutually exclusive hopes, given that a significant percentage of people here apparently disagree with you.  You don't want to hear from them -- the "echo chamber" -- you want to hear from people who agree that we need to create more meaningless bling. 

This is apparently more critical since you believe 'traditions are being snuffed'.... based on politics.... especially in the realm of uniform accoutrements.  Somehow, despite being a long-time lurker, you've missed discussions on new/old rank badges, Div patches, etc, etc (plus that rockin' 1812 pin, although that doesn't qualify as a heartlessly crushed tradition, merely a waste of effort).


But if you want a non-echo chamber point, I'd offer that the only  reason for not going ahead with this medal would be to avoid upsetting some special-interest group:  Anyone who sees this as smacking of militarism?  Québec?  :dunno:  It certainly isn't because the Liberals have suddenly discovered fiscal responsibility.

Light just went on!  This is the best reasoning I heard yet.  This current crowd has set a course of being seen as non militaristic, bring the kiddies along for honour guard inspections, ignoring the salutes of air crew when departing the Liberal Holiday Air 1.  Yes, there is an anti military air about them. 

 

[medicineman]

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?  For example - lurking here, listening to us and our pretty singular opinion on the subject, and then asking about something in the same vein...:evil:

MM

 

[brihard]

These random commemoration medals are silly. They don't end up getting awarded in any manner that ultimately gives them a generally accepted meaning. Why make jubilee / birthday medals and hand them out on on a pretext of 'merit but without any real oversight or accountability? We already have a lot of excellent options for recognizing meritorious service from commendations at various levels up to decorations and the order of military merit. All it takes is a modest amount of staff work and some patience. Maybe leadership at all levels should be more encouraged and supported in using our existing honours system rather than waiting for a frebie medal that they can hand out like a sticker sheet of gold stars.

Just my two cents...