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

Controversial vehicle - upsets residents

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,189
Points
1,040
Fishbone Jones said:
Taxpayers, users and citizens that use the park have a right to voice their opinion on what they want in local parks and city property. We haven't gone completely communist in this country yet.

That's why we have elections and the right to vote and express our opinions, without fear of reprisal. Or seemingly, used to.

If the anti voice is strong enough and a majority, they can change it. If not, majority rules.

That alone though does not discount those peopes right to form and support a position, that may not be popular. Not everyone loves a warrior.

What I find comical are all the people that are screaming about this, have never been or will never ever be in Sackville, NB but still feel it ok to impose their fundamentals on those that actually live there.

I'm the last person to say no to armour being displayed. The more the merrier. However, to suggest people are, stupid, unpatriotic, anti military or whatever, because some actual residents voice a contrary opinion is both ludicrous and childish. Not to mention going against all the freedoms the crews of those callsigns fought for or guarded.

Free speech, as much as the current government disagrees, is still a fundemental right under our Charter of Rights.

As long as your intentions and beliefs are honourable, and don't impose unnecessarily on others, you are entitled to them. They need not be popular or have concensus, as long as they are thoughtful and truthful and can be explained.

Even the right is starting to get ignorant. I'm tired of "Shut up! You're wrong. Do as I say and as you're told".

We need to bring back dueling.😏

Well said
 

Scott

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
289
Points
980
Jesus.

Moncton has a few tanks and nobody has done a header off of them, as far as I know - or they just didn't complain.

If you're worried about triggering people then you'd better drive up the road to Memramcook and rip out their rocket display.

And it's not as if 8CH doesn't have ties to the town - the armoury was right across from the post office until, what, the late 90s? 8CH makes a big effort to come to Sackville for Remembrance Day and the ceremony is right over by the current military displays.

I think opposition is in the minority, based on my talks with people from the town. Or strong indifference.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
669
Points
1,260
N.B. town suspends plan for military memorial
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/honouring-soldiers-or-violence-n-b-town-suspends-plan-for-military-memorial-1.4473724
 

BeyondTheNow

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
6
Points
530
Not wanting something in a public park or on display in any highly visible municipal area for, I don’t know, it being an eye-sore, or a safety hazard, or gawd knows what other benign reason people could possibly come up with is one thing—Yes, people have the right to complain—and, that, they surely do.

But I will gladly maintain that anyone who thinks displaying any sort of military vehicle, or paying tribute to a specific aspect of the military and/or its soldiers (or parades, or Remembrance Day ceremonies or whathaveyou) is in some way glorifying war, is undeniably ignorant, grossly uninformed and undeservingly selfish. It has nothing to do with rights.

Yes, obviously the conditions under which certain things are being observed and/or displayed is worth consideration. (ie. venues showcasing power, capability, latest technology or maneuverability of certain military weaponry/vehicles/machinery etc.) But this isn’t one of those types of instances.

"This modern armoured vehicle is a symbol of military violence and it does not serve as an appropriate memorial to those who served," Thomas said Wednesday in an interview.

Says who? Its presence can easily represent an abundance of different things to different people.

We don’t live in a “majority rules” society. We live in a ‘ye who complains the loudest gets what they want’ society.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
943
Points
1,060
BeyondTheNow said:
Says who? Its presence can easily represent an abundance of different things to different people.

It does. No more or no less than your own representation. All hold equal weight until a decision by proper authorities and means says otherwise. What they do then, is make a decision based on factors presented. It still doesn't make the other opinions invalid, only less critical to the end result.

Of course that also has to be weighted to the opinion of those that live there and are affected, as opposed to those half way across the nation with no dog in the fight other than emotion to a news article.

I wonder how many will make the trip and address city council on behalf of all outraged Canadians as opposed to the residents that take their time to go to the city with there local concerns.

We have a country going down the toilet and this is what people spend their day bitching about.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
Alex Thomas would be less fearful of this "modern symbol of military violence" if he'd had opportunity to witness them get "stuck" on wet grass on an advance thru the Lawfield.

8)

Remove the Ferret to somewhere it will be appreciated.  Let the Channel 8s decide if they are going to continue to show up on Nov 11th. 
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,675
Points
1,060
Eye In The Sky said:
Alex Thomas would be less fearful of this "modern symbol of military violence" if he'd had opportunity to witness them get "stuck" on wet grass on an advance thru the Lawfield.

8)

Remove the Ferret to somewhere it will be appreciated.  Let the Channel 8s decide if they are going to continue to show up on Nov 11th.

You rekon the upset residents would turn away soldiers.in uniforms sandbagging their houses during floods? Camouflage uniforms and military vehicles obviously being a sign of violence and glorifying war and all?
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
Jarnhamar said:
You rekon the upset residents would turn away soldiers.in uniforms sandbagging their houses during floods? Camouflage uniforms and military vehicles obviously being a sign of violence and glorifying war and all?

I don't seem to recall Alex Thomas protesting the troops driving around earlier this year with the SJ River was spilling over, nope!

There is this though...https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/army-flood-love-persists-1.5109428
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,675
Points
1,060
Eye In The Sky said:
I don't seem to recall Alex Thomas protesting the troops driving around earlier this year with the SJ River was spilling over, nope!

There is this though...https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/army-flood-love-persists-1.5109428

Those LAVs driving around town in your link only have small 25mm canons and are just "light" armored vehicles.

On the other hand, "The Cougar is a modern vehicle that represents military violence" and has a giant 76mm canon. 

Big difference ;)



(edited for humour fail)
 

Scott

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
289
Points
980
Jarnhamar said:
You rekon the upset residents would turn away soldiers.in uniforms sandbagging their houses during floods? Camouflage uniforms and military vehicles obviously being a sign of violence and glorifying war and all?

Sackville being at the forefront of the rising Bay of Fundy/lacklustre dyke system issue, I'd think it's more probability that we'll see soldiers sandbagging there in the future.

I digress.

Having lived in the town, I am completely surprised by this backlash and can only assume that the vocal minority gets the attention here. That said, it really doesn't matter much to my stance because I find myself completely onside with FJs commentary.

 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
943
Points
1,060
Jarnhamar said:
Those LAVs driving around town in your link only have small 25mm canons and are just "light" armored vehicles.

On the other hand, "The Cougar is a modern vehicle that represents military violence" and has a giant 76mm canon

If you've ever been behind the trigger of a pumpkin launcher, you wouldn't be saying that! :)
 

gcclarke

Sr. Member
Reaction score
7
Points
230
BeyondTheNow said:
But I will gladly maintain that anyone who thinks displaying any sort of military vehicle, or paying tribute to a specific aspect of the military and/or its soldiers (or parades, or Remembrance Day ceremonies or whathaveyou) is in some way glorifying war, is undeniably ignorant, grossly uninformed and undeservingly selfish. It has nothing to do with rights.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Someone who considers displaying an armoured vehicle in a park to be glorifying war is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. Honestly, I think it's probably one I agree with; the question is just whether or not said glorification is viewed as a good thing or a bad thing.

This isn't like a Remembrance Day ceremony or anything of the like where there's the rest of the stuff going on to contextualize it, and focus upon the horrors of war. It's a cool piece of kit in a park. That's what people will see when they head to the park. Sticking a few plaques on an armoured vehicle doesn't actually magically turn it into a proper war memorial IMHO.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,703
Points
1,040
gcclarke said:
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Someone who considers displaying an armoured vehicle in a park to be glorifying war is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. Honestly, I think it's probably one I agree with; the question is just whether or not said glorification is viewed as a good thing or a bad thing.

This isn't like a Remembrance Day ceremony or anything of the like where there's the rest of the stuff going on to contextualize it, and focus upon the horrors of war. It's a cool piece of kit in a park. That's what people will see when they head to the park. Sticking a few plaques on an armoured vehicle doesn't actually magically turn it into a proper war memorial IMHO.

Especially when the only war we ever had it for was the Cold War.

I've never considered a military memorial, whether an obelisk, or statue or an armored vehicle a "war" memorial, but a tribute or sign of remembrance or acknowledgement to the soldiers who served their country at that time whether in combat or not. Like you I see where others' views may vary--they don't concern me. Where I get concerned is where a small, loud, bullying group can shout down the majority and influence municipal decision makers to do the (IMHO) wrong thing.

I tend to believe that Nixon was right in that there is a "silent majority" that needs to be considered by our politicians. Unfortunately they won't do that until the "silent majority" starts using its voice either in the press or at the polls.

:cheers:
 

Rick Goebel

Member
Donor
Reaction score
7
Points
230
Maybe they should have called it a Peacekeeping Memorial since we actually used the Cougar on Peacekeeping in former Yugoslavia but indeed, as FJAG said, "the only war we ever had it for was the Cold War".
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,979
Points
1,060
Rick Goebel said:
Maybe they should have called it a Peacekeeping Memorial since we actually used the Cougar on Peacekeeping in former Yugoslavia but indeed, as FJAG said, "the only war we ever had it for was the Cold War".

The Boats deployed to Somalia too.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
669
Points
1,260
Seems like the people of Sussex are getting all sorts of advice from coast to coast.

Perhaps they are doing the right thing by taking a pause to privately discuss it among themselves.

I stared up in awe at that Lancaster many times in a local park over a 33 year period. My father was very disappointed when they took it away. So was I.

The only "cougars" I see are parked at the local watering holes.

I would certainly have no objections if they want to park an old military vehicle in a local park. An M135 would also be nice.

When the DND insisted municipal taxpayers sign a liability waiver in case of injury, it reminded me of what is going on in the city  where I live.

Our Parks Dept. gets sued so often - with the cost passed on to the municipal taxpayers - they removed the sandbox's and  older pieces, including a digging contraption kids used to pretend to excavate dinosaur bones.

The climbing towers are now very low, the slides are small, and the swings are designed to prevent users from gaining any altitude or speed. I've always enjoyed taking my children, and now my grand-children, there. Even played there myself when I was a kid.

It's safer now. But, not as much fun.

Everything these days seems to be about risk management and litigation.

Edit spelling.







 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,675
Points
1,060
gcclarke said:
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Someone who considers displaying an armoured vehicle in a park to be glorifying war is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. Honestly, I think it's probably one I agree with;

Would you say there is a difference between displaying an armored vehicle "in a park" and displaying an armored vehicle in a memorial park, along side other memorial displays.

Ferret armored car, anchor, picture of the hmcs Sackville, propeller from an rcaf plane, stone obelisk.

https://mynewbrunswick.ca/sackville-memorial-park/
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
669
Points
1,260
Jarnhamar said:
https://mynewbrunswick.ca/sackville-memorial-park/

I was looking at the memorial with all those names. Then at the population during that era,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackville,_New_Brunswick#Demographics

The impact on a town that size must have been staggering.
 

gcclarke

Sr. Member
Reaction score
7
Points
230
Jarnhamar said:
Would you say there is a difference between displaying an armored vehicle "in a park" and displaying an armored vehicle in a memorial park, along side other memorial displays.

Ferret armored car, anchor, picture of the hmcs Sackville, propeller from an rcaf plane, stone obelisk.

https://mynewbrunswick.ca/sackville-memorial-park/

Honestly, no. I would not say there is a difference. A memorial needs to look like it's a memorial, not a vehicle. It needs to be clear at first (or at least second) glance that the purpose of the object is to commemorate the dead. Parts of vehicles or vehicles themselves can be incorporated into memorials, sure. Props, anchors, etc. Or, say, depictions of vehicles. Something like a statue depicting the burnt out husk of a tank could do the trick. Or this unique memorial in Lebanon.
kQ5EGpE.jpg


But just the vehicles themselves, even if with a few plaques, or in a park with other memorials? No, I don't think that's effectively serving the purpose.

I mean, let's put it this way: we're all supposed to salute war memorials, right? I expect said memorials to be designed in a manner that I can actually tell when approaching them that they are war memorials, rather than being expected to go up and read every plaque, to be able to tell the difference between this vehicle that's supposedly a memorial and this other one that's just there to look cool.

Form should follow function. Memorials that aren't recognizable as such are failing to attain their purported goal.
 
Top