Mom says daughter should get slain soldier's medal

[Another Mom]

Are there that many soldiers dying or that many people clammering for medals that it is necessary to use an impersonal and inflexible system to decide who gets them? Do they cost a lot to manufacture? To distribute?  If a family member is grieving (yes, even a sibling) and they value their loved one's service enough to request a medal that it means something to them, then doesn't that pall in comparison to what it cost the forces to mail them one?  Isn't that better than someone not wanting any reminder at all of the forces?  I think the final insult would be a reminder that a medal will not be forthcoming because the paperwork was not filled out. Perhaps a compromise would be a letter or phone call describing that  the parent and spouse (or people on the "list") automatically get a medal, and if other family members would like one they should talk or write to the chaplain describing their special circumstances and it would be considered. Couldn't the chaplain, the CEO and one other person decide? It would go a long way to  having the last memory of the forces be a positive one. 

Is is really better to have no family member at a Remembrance Day service, than a brother (who otherwise could be home cleaning the garage)?  I think we are losing sight that  these family members are supporting their loved one in their endeavor, even though it came to death.  Enough people are against the Forces and want to have nothing to do with it, that I think it would be good to support those family members that do want to support  the Forces.

 

[dapaterson]

The service member decides.  Full stop.  In this case, the deceased chose not to list his daughter.  His forms were up-to-date.  Full stop.

These are not complex issues.  For whatever reason, he chose not to award a memorial cross to his daughter in the event of his death.  So, the better question is this:  Do we dishonour the wishes of the deceased?

 

[ENGINEERS WIFE]

Another Mom
The system is not impersonable and inflexible.  The soldier that is going overseas decides who he wants to receive the 3 Memorial Crosses.  It's that simple. 

Maybe we should think about what the soldier wants.  Just to play devil's advocate.  What if a soldiers mother was just a REALLY rotten and he did not under any circumstances have anything to do with her.  Should she then be able to phone up the padre/CO and because she gave birth to him, then be eligible for that medal that he wants to go to his wife?  It is his/her choice.  They are the one risking their lives.  Although I think that if the medals are not going to immediate family, the soldier needs to explain his choices to his family. That way no one will be wondering if the unthinkable happens.  Whether it is in a letter in his pers file or they are told personally.


I should clarify...I think it would save alot of heartache IF the soldiers explained his choices.

 

[McG]

I don't like the idea of a new medal.  However ...

"Each CF member will provide a list of up to three names"

I know members with more than three children.  It would be nice if there were some flexibility that, if the member chose his/her children (and only the children), then additional medals could be made avaialbe even for child # 4 & 5 & whatever else (as we all know there are even ridiculously larger families out there as they have a tendancy to steal air-time from worth wile television content). 

 

[Michael OLeary]

Is is really better to have no family member at a Remembrance Day service, than a brother (who otherwise could be home cleaning the garage)?  I think we are losing sight that  these family members are supporting their loved one in their endeavor, even though it came to death.  Enough people are against the Forces and want to have nothing to do with it, that I think it would be good to support those family members that do want to support  the Forces.

Perhaps I should have been more clear: the emotional hurdle will be the one the Legion and the media (as well as the emotive peanut gallery) will have to go through to understand that a brother who received a Memorial Cross, because his fallen sibling specified he should, is just as deserving to represent the fallen on behalf of the families as the traditional Silver Cross Mother has been for the past 90+ years.


Note to self: explain everything in detail, if something can be misinterpreted it will be misinterpreted..

 

[gunshy]

I am not a member of the Forces but have read the posts with surprise. If the day ever came that I personally was named to be given a medal from a friend and/or spouse that give his life protecting his Country and doing what he loved... I would be absolutely devastated beyond words but yet completely honoured :yellow: that he thought enough of me to carry and keep his honour.

Hindsight is 20/20.  It's unfortunate that he didn't designate his daughter as a Memorial Cross recipient.

 

(So true, but now, maybe this is a huge wake up call for all soldiers to seriously think when they are filling out their paperwork. I mean this respectfully and hope my statement does not offend anyone. In the same token, if a soldier submits 3 names it should be understood and respected that his wishes are carried out with no exceptions. Again, I mean this with the utmost respect, soldiers know there are 3 spaces to fill, they need to choose/ consider them according to their individual situation. As for the ones left behind it is unfortunate  :'( if a family member etc. is not stated in a soldiers paperwork but has to be repected.)

Soon enough, if we keep changing the standards for the cross (which used to go to the mother's only) it will dpreciate from its value.  In the same vein as all the commendations that are handed out to people who simply do their jobs as they are supposed to and get nominated.  Kind of detracts from those people who get the same award for diving into a river to rescue a car crash victim.

(I cannot agree... I don't believe that any medal that has been named and given from a fallen soldier would ever loose it's value! As it cost the soldier the ultimate price  :'(. Possibly misunderstanding your statement?)

I am not trying to be insensitve, just realist.

(Realistically a soldier has 3 spaces to fill... if they have 10 prospects unfortunately they have to shortlist 7! This may not seem fair but a line has to be drawn somewhere and that is the reality. Good Luck to all of you in your choices)
May God Bless you all, keep you safe and always return you home to your loved ones! :yellow:

 

[kratz]

This "news" story is still alive. Heather Peace is on live on Canada AM this morning being interviewed. She is laying the blame with the CF. None of her statements during the interview is new from the two newspaper articles posted earlier.

Canada AM has posted a link to her online petition . Based on the phrasing of the petition, Peace does not know know how medals are created, or how changes to medals are made. So far her petition has only 134 signatures.

 

[mariomike]

This "news" story is still alive. Heather Peace is on live on Canada AM this morning being interviewed. She is laying the blame with the CF.

I agree with Mr. O'Leary's P.O.V. on the subject. What I suspect we are seeing from Mrs. Peace is not so much about the medal, and more about her wanting attention. Unfortunately, she is doing it in a very public way at the expense of her daughter and the memory of her late father. The CF tried to do what they believed was the right thing when they changed a policy that had been the tradition since World War One.

 

[PMedMoe]

Canada AM has posted a link to her online petition . Based on the phrasing of the petition, Peace does not know know how medals are created, or how changes to medals are made. So far her petition has only 134 signatures.

140 signatures now, of the "usual" ilk:

Lynette Churchill - All children of fallen soliders should be recognized and be on the top of the list for receiving this medal in memory of the parent which they have lost. You begin to wonder why this little girl was left out and the ex-girlfriends mother received it. I don't know the relationship here but in my mind his daughter should of been put ahead of this lady.

Lynette, there is no "order of priority" for this.  The soldier fills out the paperwork and it is their choice who will or will not receive it.

cindy higgins - children should get a silver cross also they are very inportant to carry on thier fathersl name

Umm, Cindy?  His child is a girl.  Yes, she could carry on her father's name but it's not likely.

Melanie Hudon - think it is a disgrace that this little girl hasn't gotten what is rightfully hers.

Really Melanie?  Just where does it state this is a right?

Amanda Naugle - i agree all children of fallen service people should get a metal to remind then their parent was a hero

I think that all children should be proficient in proper spelling and sentence structure.  Maybe I should start a petition......

 

[Long in the tooth]

Having a soldier direct who should receive a Memorial Cross before deployment is a CF cop out and denial of responsibility.  It gets DND off the hook (again), placing responsibility on the individual soldier.  The Padre should be the buffer here, and GD it, if the girl would feel better having the cross then so be it.  The 'mailman' does not get one, BTW.
I had my Wife and Mother down as recipients.  Now that my Mother has passed on I feel only my wife (not any of my three daughters) should get it.  But that's a personal call.

More and more DND is writing orders to CYA. 

 

[Roy Harding]

Having a soldier direct who should receive a Memorial Cross before deployment is a CF cop out and denial of responsibility.  It gets DND off the hook (again), placing responsibility on the individual soldier.  The Padre should be the buffer here, and GD it, if the girl would feel better having the cross then so be it.  The 'mailman' does not get one, BTW.
I had my Wife and Mother down as recipients.  Now that my Mother has passed on I feel only my wife (not any of my three daughters) should get it.  But that's a personal call.

More and more DND is writing orders to CYA.

I was kind of agreeing with you at first.  Then you contradicted yourself.  The last sentence of your first paragraph says it all - "But that's a personal call".

Exactly it's a personal call - which is what the CF is allowing its' soldiers to make.

 

[CountDC]

I was kind of agreeing with you at first.  Then you contradicted yourself.  The last sentence of your first paragraph says it all - "But that's a personal call".

Exactly it's a personal call - which is what the CF is allowing its' soldiers to make.

beat me to it - talk about a contradicting post. 

It is a personal call and should be. I do not believe it is a case of the CF doing a CYA, I believe they were giving the troops what was wanted.  In my case, the cross goes to the girls because that is what I decided. The boys can fight it out over any medals I have and my jewelry.  Only problem will be if I have another daughter I will have to decide which of the girls get left out.  Most likely D9 will say to take her off the list so in the end I guess it won't be me deciding.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Having a soldier direct who should receive a Memorial Cross before deployment is a CF cop out and denial of responsibility.  It gets DND off the hook (again), placing responsibility on the individual soldier.

100% disagree.  I think the responsibility is right where it should be, with the serving member.  Same as my SDB beneficiary, my SISIP OGTI and my Will, I've clearly listed who should get a MC if I take one for the team somewhere along the line.

 

[PMedMoe]

Having a soldier direct who should receive a Memorial Cross before deployment is a CF cop out and denial of responsibility.  It gets DND off the hook (again), placing responsibility on the individual soldier.

Which is where it should be.  I don't want need someone else deciding who gets a MC in the event of my death and I'll be damned (probably will be anyway  ) if I require someone to counsel me on that decision.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Having a soldier direct who should receive a Memorial Cross before deployment is a CF cop out and denial of responsibility.

More and more DND is writing orders to CYA.

I laughed at that.  DND used to have a directive policy.  But, of course, people didn't like that, so they changed it.

Just more proof that there is no policy, regulation or decision that won't bring someone out of the woodwork to say it's wrong.

So please, tell us your plan that will satisfy everyone.

 

[Another Mom]

Is it possible for the soldier to stipulate only 1 or 2 people? Or 4 or more? Trying to decide 3, no more, no less, might work for some, but for others, it might be so tough to decide that that a young soldier might put down any old name to get it over with.  Could the directive be "only birth dad", or "all children" etc. That way the soldier decides but does not have to make a really hard choice (of 3).  Or does not have to have the "conversation", if he does not want to. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

And then where do you draw the "common sense" line, so no-one writes in "everyone in my graduating class", or "all 17 of my nieces and nephews"?

Why does one unhappy person justify requiring the restructure of the whole idea, again?

 

[PMedMoe]

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe there was a reason he did not name his daughter as a recipient?

 

[Franko]

Maybe it should go back to the way it was...the soldier's mom only. Then there is no way for anyone to complain that they were left out.

The funny thing is the CF changed the policy to appease families and soldiers alike and, for the most part, it has worked. I've talked to a few troops prior to deployment when the paperwork was being filled out and the question was asked "Who do I put down?" I answered "Who matters the most to you in the world?" they then started to write.

The soldier made the decision, possibly without thinking it through, but a decision all the same. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't understand how he could forget about his daughter and put down his girlfriend's mother instead. Perhaps he had his reasons.

He's gone and his wishes, no matter how much they hurt, have to be respected...do they not?

Regards

 

[armyvern]

Is it possible for the soldier to stipulate only 1 or 2 people? Or 4 or more? Trying to decide 3, no more, no less, might work for some, but for others, it might be so tough to decide that that a young soldier might put down any old name to get it over with.  Could the directive be "only birth dad", or "all children" etc. That way the soldier decides but does not have to make a really hard choice (of 3).  Or does not have to have the "conversation", if he does not want to.

Soldiers can designate "up to 3" recipients. One, Two, or Three (maximum). Or NONE.

And yes, this has occured. When I asked for his reasoning behind the line through his form with the statement "I designated ZERO recipients to receive the Memorial Cross in the event of my death" (with his signature underneath and his signature again in the signature block of the form ... I'd have been hard pressed not to do the exact same thing had I experienced his life.

Just remember, not all families are the Cleavers, and some kids just can't wait to get the heck away from "home" - he was one of them. I inquired if he had any close friends etc that he would like to see presented this - he did not. He has since married and completed a new form - it lists his wife and the area for the 2nd and 3rd receiptients are struck out in the very same manner as they were on his original form.

Soldiers are adults. This is their decision and choice to make. They have their reasons for designating as they do - all I can do (and all the CF can do) is respect the fact that they were adult enough to die for their Country, then they were also adult enough to make their own choice regarding who would or who would not receive a Memorial Cross.