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

Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

Which do you prefer


  • Total voters
    281
I just hope that the government can get this fixed for all of our fallen to have that recognition..or else let them explain that reasoning( of why not) to the fallen soldiers families face to face and see the real pain of war! Ubique
 
ArmyVern said:
Geez,
You must have MISSED the part where I said:
"although everyone else seems to recognize and acknowledge their status officially - apparently our own government chooses not to. Interesting that."
And, BTW, as to your last sentence above ... apparently ... "only in Canada."  ;) 

You're right I did miss that - so I'll just agree with what you said...
 
I still respectfully disagree with this whole motion to change this.

I was involved in a vehicle accident in Bosnia in 2002 - are the persons who sustained injuries in this accident going to be eligible for a Sacrifice Medal?  It will if the "sustained in combat" caveat is removed.  They need to change the name of the medal.

The families were accorded Memorial Crosses for their loss - does this not meet the recognition they are asking for?
 
ArmyVern said:
Well, I hope if he's successful at this ... it's for everyone killed while on ANY Operational tours then. Period. Or I'd certainly be pissed if I was the family of one of those fallen members. And, if so ... then ANY soldier killed while doing his job -- in Canada or abroad, else I'd be pissed if I were there families too ... see where this is all leading now?

And, the circle will continue. Why can't we ever set a standard and stick with it?

My response is not aimed at Vern, but adds to the recent trend of some, who would be considered "whiners" by many of the old school.  Why do they want to change the criteria?  Why not change the name to more accurately portray the criteria, as I have insisted in another thread on just that matter?  If it is impossible (Not saying it is.) to change the name, then why would it be possible to change the criteria?

What do we do next?  I suggest we all sign a petition demanding, yes demanding, the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal be issued to all Serving Members at the time of its inception.  Then we can do the same, sign a petition for the 125 Medal, for all serving members at the time of its inception.  Lets sign a petition for any other medals that we have not given out universally to all Serving Members at the time of their inception.  MMMs, CMMs, OMMs and Orders of Canada to all Serving Members.

When and where do we stop this glory seeking quest for trinkets?

Yes, indeed, this IS DISGUSTING.
 
George Wallace said:
When and where do we stop this glory seeking quest for trinkets?

Yes, indeed, this IS DISGUSTING.

Ahhhh finally.

The words that many have been aching to say ---

+1 George.
 
Has anyone any rebuttal to the observation re the exclusion of members who died on an operational mission other than because of enemy action why the award is called the sacrifice medal and not the wound stripe?
 
the 48th regulator said:
Because the standard in this case, does not appear to have been well thought out.  Standards are not meant to be set in stone either Vern, otherwise you would not have been able to make any comments, based on personal military experience.  It would not have been allowed, ;)

dileas

tess

The "standard", in this case, has not changed one iota from the Wound Stripe - except that this "Sacrifice Medal" is now awarded posthumously as well.

No one had any issues with the "standards" before it was a medal. Now some of those who were previously quite proud of their "Dress Distinction" are now making comments like "but the Wound Stripe is "only" a Dress Distinction." It was (and IS) a Dress Distinction that carried great honour and significance. All soldiers knew what it was and meant, and so did veterans. Se what the intoduction of this medal has done?

I think everyone here Tess is quite aware that I have no "Wound Stripe" ... and never have I inferred such. But, I, as a CAO, I can tell you right now (because yes, I am privvy to the thoughts and feelings of families) that if the name of the Medal is changed, that won't fix the criteria. And if the criteria is changed, that won't fix the denigration of service that those who are families of fallen from Bosnia, Somalia, Golan, etc etc all still feel when their son's (and daughter's too - because there's been those as well) when their loved ones don't qualify. Period.  ;)

They implemented this with a standard - that being the same standard that was applicable to the Wound Stripe that no one seemed to have any issues with. That standard was "Hostile Intent" as it has always been. For the life of me, I can't figure out WHY we came out with this medal (other than for more "bling") when the Wound Stripe was quite acceptable to everyone in the first place.

Look what this has done ... to our soldiers ... to our fallen ... and to the families of our fallen.

I hope someone out there manages to think it was worth it; I'm not one of them. It wasn't the standarads that were ill thought out - it was the decision to implement it in the first place that was the error.
 
Vern,

My comment towards you does not have anything to do with wounds, it was a jab  at your being a woman, and how one time you would not have been able to serve in the area you do because of that  I hope you did not misinterpret that,  I hate the internet and how I am unable to convey my thoughts.

As for the criteria, you are correct, as per the standard of the wound stripe;

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/11_03/11_03_wound_e.asp

What kind of injury does not merit a wound stripe?
Injuries received in accidents in special duty areas, on domestic provision of service operations, or on training exercises do not qualify for wound stripes. Wound stripes are not issued posthumously.


I was a champion of this medal, well before it's inception.  I couldn't care less if people want to call me selfish, self centered, or whatever they want to coin me.

I will tell you why I feel we should fix this, based on my experience.  You know how many times I have had to relay my story of when I was wounded, to civilians, you and I know each other.  Every single one of those times I was asked what medal did I get for those wounds.  I had to explain Canada does not issue a "Purple heart" type medal, but a wound stripe which is sewn on ones sleeve.  Each time those Canadians, offering respect for me mind you, cursed our nation for being so petty.

Now, imagine how I felt.  Canada.  Petty for giving me a cloth patch.  For what I have given up (i.e. Sacrificed....).

Now, I was not upset by the civvy, or my nation.  But this is the way I look at it, our actions in uniform must be carefully thought out, as we represent our country.  I too am a  billboard for the achievements of my country.  My medals tell a story, not about me and what I have achieved, but what Canada has done and achieved.  All the medals that I wear is a story of where Canada has been.  When one wears a medal, that signifies that they were wounded, it shows that Canada had the muster to send its soldiers in a dangerous area.

It has nothing to do with me being selfish, however I am willing to take the brunt of those who wish to call me that.  Call my reasoning behind what I am saying as being a little too deep, I don't care.

The fact that the country would rather displease the families of the fallen, by not issuing this medal, for fear of having to deal with a deluge of those who will claim it all the way to the Boer war....well  that to me is petty, and selfish.


They call it a sacrifice medal, but I love the way a country can decide on the definition of a word.  Good thing they included the civilian population as being possible recipients, it took only one diplomat's death to convince them that there was a need to include them.

dileas

tess
 
the 48th regulator said:
Vern,

My comment towards you does not have anything to do with wounds, it was a jab  at your being a woman, and how one time you would not have been able to serve in the area you do because of that  I hope you did not misinterpret that,  I hate the internet and how I am unable to convey my thoughts.

As for the criteria, you are correct, as per the standard of the wound stripe;

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/11_03/11_03_wound_e.asp

What kind of injury does not merit a wound stripe?
Injuries received in accidents in special duty areas, on domestic provision of service operations, or on training exercises do not qualify for wound stripes. Wound stripes are not issued posthumously.


I was a champion of this medal, well before it's inception.  I couldn't care less if people want to call me selfish, self centered, or whatever they want to coin me.

I will tell you why I feel we should fix this, based on my experience.  You know how many times I have had to relay my story of when I was wounded, to civilians, you and I know each other.  Every single one of those times I was asked what medal did I get for those wounds.  I had to explain Canada does not issue a "Purple heart" type medal, but a wound stripe which is sewn on ones sleeve.  Each time those Canadians, offering respect for me mind you, cursed our nation for being so petty.

Now, imagine how I felt.  Canada.  Petty for giving me a cloth patch.  For what I have given up (i.e. Sacrificed....).

Now, I was not upset by the civvy, or my nation.  But this is the way I look at it, our actions in uniform must be carefully thought out, as we represent our country.   I too am a  billboard for the achievements of my country.  My medals tell a story, not about me and what I have achieved, but what Canada has done and achieved.  All the medals that I wear is a story of where Canada has been.  When one wears a medal, that signifies that they were wounded, it shows that Canada had the muster to send its soldiers in a dangerous area.

It has nothing to do with me being selfish, however I am willing to take the brunt of those who wish to call me that.  Call my reasoning behind what I am saying as being a little too deep, I don't care.

The fact that the country would rather displease the families of the fallen, by not issuing this medal, for fear of having to deal with a deluge of those who will claim it all the way to the Boer war....well  that to me is petty, and selfish.


They call it a sacrifice medal, but I love the way a country can decide on the definition of a word.  Good thing they included the civilian population as being possible recipients, it took only one diplomat's death to convince them that there was a need to include them.

dileas

tess

Tess-

While I object to the new medal, and my objection still stands (with my opinion being right up there alongside that of your nextdoor neighbour's cat, I suspect  ;)), you've nonetheless done as good a job as I've yet seen of articulating your side of this.

My disagreement notwithstanding, that was very well thought our and brilliantly, succinctly written. BZ for at least presenting it so damn well. I've a much better understanding of your P.O.V. now, even if I should still disagree.

And, since I don't think I personally have said so to you before, thank you for what you've given. While I endeavor never to earn one of these, I think no person can aspire to keep better company than to belong amongst the ranks of those who have earned these distinctions, either in the current or the traditional form.
 
George Wallace said:
When and where do we stop this glory seeking quest for trinkets?

Yes, indeed, this IS DISGUSTING.

It's not a trinket George, it is something bestowed upon someone for wounds they have sustained in combat.  Trinkets generally are meaningless as they are given for little or no reason.  Canada 125 is a trinket, this medal is not.

Detractors have denigrated the "Canadian Purple Heart" as too American.  Hey, we've recognized wounds in combat for some time now, so how does this award suddenly become crap now that it is on the chest rather then the sleeve.  Taking a wound in the face of the enemy is something that soldiers deserve to be recognized for. 

I think this award is a good addition to our honours and awards system - it needs a new name though.  Originally, I wasn't a fan of it as I thought the wound stripe was fine, but it is here and I think it is a fine way to recognize the unique burden carried by those who have earned it.
 
As always its the clash of traditionalists vs anything new. Its a done deal so everyone will have to adjust. Perhaps NDHQ should have made it optional for a wounded soldier to choose which he wants to wear.
 
Infanteer said:
It's not a trinket George, it is something bestowed upon someone for wounds they have sustained in combat.  Trinkets generally are meaningless as they are given for little or no reason.  Canada 125 is a trinket, this medal is not.

Detractors have denigrated the "Canadian Purple Heart" as too American.  Hey, we've recognized wounds in combat for some time now, so how does this award suddenly become crap now that it is on the chest rather then the sleeve.  Taking a wound in the face of the enemy is something that soldiers deserve to be recognized for. 

I think this award is a good addition to our honours and awards system - it needs a new name though.  Originally, I wasn't a fan of it as I thought the wound stripe was fine, but it is here and I think it is a fine way to recognize the unique burden carried by those who have earned it.

I'll agree on your "trinket" comment.

By the same token - I guess my feelings are much like yours - applicable also the other way around:

"How does the Wound Stripe now suddenly become crap (ie "only" a Dress Distinction) because it's on the sleeve rather then the chest." Sadly, some people are now feeling that way. That concerns me. It hurts me ... and I'm not even one of them.

Which is the very statement I made first thing this morning in a PM to a member (wierd eh??).

It's here. I agree. But, it's here with standards applicable and I think those standards should remain as they have always been (the actual "name" of it is off-target as well). "Hostile Intent". If those standards are evolved to encompass all those injured or killed in SDAs by accidents, NDs etc that are not encompassing of that "hostile intent" criteria then we have simply broadened the terms to include everyone injured or killed in a SDA while doing their duty. Not that I think there's anything wrong with that either, but all that will lead to - in the long run - is the denigration of service and the hurt felt by soldiers and families who have been injured and killed while performing their Duties right here in Canada as they would not qualify.

The same hurt would be felt by them. They too, after all, are all volunteers. They too were injured or killed while upholding that Oath to Queen and Country and peforming their Duty. Would their sacrifices be any less because they were killed or injured in Canada by an ND, or in a Lav rollover, or by a grenade tossing drills performed impropery on a range, in a Herc crash in Alert or Alaska? I'm sure that their families wouldn't think so, but any change to the criteria which would not encompass those who've had to endure these same things "on" Canadian soil would surely make them believe that their sacrifice is somehow lesser.



Edited for typos.
 
ArmyVern said:
"How does the Wound Stripe now suddenly become crap (ie "only" a Dress Distinction) because it's on the sleeve rather then the chest." Sadly, some people are now feeling that way. That concerns me. It hurts me ... and I'm not even one of them.

Which is the very statement I made first thing this morning in a PM to a member (wierd eh??).

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/11_03/11_03_wound_e.asp

Wound stripes FAQ

Following the precedent set in the First and Second World Wars, the CF awards wound stripes to battlefield casualties. The narrow gold braid stripe is a dress distinction recognizing  a physical or mental injury received as a result of armed conflict


And because of that, you would have to sew it on a dress uniform, or suit Jacket.  An where?  On the sleeve.  A small tiny gold strip.

Once again, our fine Governments explanation....

dileas

tess
 
If this is considered on par with an American Purple Heart  some of the actions that have claimed  lives will still not be eligible for it .  Lets recall that These are honours and awards Bestowed apon an indiviual by the goverment  not given to just anyone off the street .
 
the 48th regulator said:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/11_03/11_03_wound_e.asp

Wound stripes FAQ

Following the precedent set in the First and Second World Wars, the CF awards wound stripes to battlefield casualties. The narrow gold braid stripe is a dress distinction recognizing  a physical or mental injury received as a result of armed conflict



Once again, our fine Governments explanation....

dileas

tess

I know Tess. My comment is more of a note of the "ONLY" that it has now seemingly become. About a month ago it was "A Wound Stripe",  a Dress Distinction that all those who had been dignified with it were very proud of. It was (and is by me) completely, 100% respected and honourable.

But now, some of those very people are noting that it was "only" a Dress Distinction.

Can you imagine a month ago walking up to someone with a Wound Stripe and saying "Yeah so? It's "only" a Dress Distinction you have." I can't imagine the thought. I can't imagine ever referring to the Wound Stripe in those terms.

That's what saddens me. That some of the very people who've earned it now have that "only" in front of it, when a month ago - they wouldn't have (and no, I don't think they put the "only" in there because they are in a quest for more "bling" for themselves). :-[

And, you know I love you.

Dileas Gu Brath
 
Vern,

I know where you are coming from.

But as I said in my earlier post, The general population does not look at one sleeve and Identify what someone has sacrificed for their country, but what one has acheived.  Shooting very well (Marksman badge), playing the flute well (Bandsman's badge) etc etc.

I won't repeat myself, however, we are a history book of what Canada has done as a nation, and I think they muddled up a page or two, and are now trying to fix it.  However they are writing it with a yellow highlighter.  Draws attention to one's eye, however hard to read.

dileas

tess
 
Back
Top