WAR OF 1812: UNIT RECOGNITION
- Thread starter pbi
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Lowlander said:
No, there's a difference between the official history and the version of history people want to invent using flexible semantics and a willingness to overlook the facts.
Michael O'Leary said:
And in that vein, the following oped piece is reproduced from the National Post website under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:
Celebrate Canada’s first military heroes
National Post Aug 1, 2011 – 10:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Jul 29, 2011 5:08 PM ET
By Robert Smol
Just how important should Canada be to the Canadian army?
The answer should be obvious, except perhaps when one considers the War of 1812. Over a dozen current Canadian army reserve regiments found their origin as permanent colonial regiments or militia units organized to protect Canada during the U.S invasions of 1812-14.
Sadly, while battle honours (the right to list a battle or campaign on a military unit’s flags and official signage) were produced by the British Crown to recognize service during the War of 1812, the post-Confederation Canadian government refused to allow any of its own military regiments to carry such honours. Many Canadian units have battle honours stemming from the Riel Rebellion, the Boer War, the two World Wars and Korea, but no Canadian unit recognizes the sacrifices of our ancestors from before Confederation. Only British units are allowed to celebrate the feats of heroism that kept Canada from being annexed by the United States.
While it may seem like a minor issue, battle honours are a point of pride for Canadian army regiments. They are the most important symbol of a unit’s history, and the sacrifices that it has made in the service of its country. It honours not only the unit itself, but all the soldiers who died while fighting as part of it. Regimental battle honours inscribed on the regiment’s colours (flag) are treated with near religious reverence by members of a unit, and are proudly flown when on parade.
Granted, we cannot deny the historical fact that it was the British army that did most of the fighting during the U.S invasions of 1812-14. Their Canadian battle honours are well deserved, and something that British army units remain rightly proud of to this day.
But that does not mean that Canadians stood aside. In the years leading up to the war, the British government authorized the formation of several permanent army regiments in Canada. Regiments such as the Glengarry Light Infantry Fencibles, the Voltigeurs canadiens and the 104th (New Brunswick) Regiment of Foot, among others, served on the front lines and saw action during most of the war’s bloody battles. There were also of thousands of militia soldiers, members of local units who would arm themselves and join with the larger, regular units when there was fighting in their area. Hundreds of these militia soldiers and permanent volunteers were killed or badly wounded during the war.
These men served their king and country with honour, and created military units that later became part of the proud Canadian military that we have today. It is only appropriate that those Canadian units that can trace their origin back to the War of 1812 should be able to list the battles of that war as part of their regiment’s proud tradition. It’s true that these battles predate Confederation itself, but so do many other parts of our history, including many that are openly embraced and celebrated by Canadians as a part of our rich heritage. There is no reason that Canada’s military history should be any different.
National Post
Robert Smol is a Toronto-based writer and teacher. He served for more than two decades in the Canadian Forces.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I’ve been following this discussion and believe many of the points, while interesting, are off the point.
I think that everyone will agree the concept and rules of the grant of Battle Honours were developed in response to a perceived need. In the same way the 1855 rule, perpetuation, and the Canadian rules surrounding the grant of Battle Honours were all made in response to perceived needs. All were man-made, and all can be changed, or even discarded. In fact, the current regulations regarding the grant of Battle Honours have evolved numerous times over time.
I also think that everyone would agree that in any decision making, the process should go from concept to detail. To do otherwise leads to Michael O’Leary’s valid point that the arguments begin “to read like a ‘situated estimate’ where, once, the commander has decided on a plan…..”.
In my opinion, listing present-day units of the CF and the honours to which they are entitled, distract from resolution of the concept of a “perceived need”. The first issue to be decided is whether there is a need to issue War of 1812 Battle Honours. If it is decided that there is a need, the details of which honours should be recognized, the rules for the allocation, and the method of award follow. To do otherwise is “putting the cart before the horse”.
Arguments surrounding what has happened in the past are also distracting. Remember that those decisions were made in response to a need, and the policies, rules and regulations that followed were developed in order to satisfy the need. They were man-made, and as such were subject to modification.
So the core of this discussion should be to answer the question, “Should Canada authorize the grant of War of 1812 Battle Honours to current units of the Canadian Forces?”
If the answer is “Yes” it follows that the government has the authority to develop the policies surrounding the grant, without stumbling through past precedence.
Bill
I think that everyone will agree the concept and rules of the grant of Battle Honours were developed in response to a perceived need. In the same way the 1855 rule, perpetuation, and the Canadian rules surrounding the grant of Battle Honours were all made in response to perceived needs. All were man-made, and all can be changed, or even discarded. In fact, the current regulations regarding the grant of Battle Honours have evolved numerous times over time.
I also think that everyone would agree that in any decision making, the process should go from concept to detail. To do otherwise leads to Michael O’Leary’s valid point that the arguments begin “to read like a ‘situated estimate’ where, once, the commander has decided on a plan…..”.
In my opinion, listing present-day units of the CF and the honours to which they are entitled, distract from resolution of the concept of a “perceived need”. The first issue to be decided is whether there is a need to issue War of 1812 Battle Honours. If it is decided that there is a need, the details of which honours should be recognized, the rules for the allocation, and the method of award follow. To do otherwise is “putting the cart before the horse”.
Arguments surrounding what has happened in the past are also distracting. Remember that those decisions were made in response to a need, and the policies, rules and regulations that followed were developed in order to satisfy the need. They were man-made, and as such were subject to modification.
So the core of this discussion should be to answer the question, “Should Canada authorize the grant of War of 1812 Battle Honours to current units of the Canadian Forces?”
If the answer is “Yes” it follows that the government has the authority to develop the policies surrounding the grant, without stumbling through past precedence.
Bill
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Bill Smy said:
Skipping over all discussion of past precedents and history is ignoring both cart and horse and cherry picking a result out of a wagon load of possibilities. Setting those aside because they may not support the desired result is the definition of seeking the "situated estimate." I would suggest the core questions are:
1. Are there units of the War of 1812 that might be deserving of honours - based on the rules and conditions of award for that period?
2. If there are awards which might be considered - what units might have carried them after 1812 - and which, if any, would have realistically been transferred to units of the Canadian Militia when they were created in the 1860s and after?
3. If they would not have been transferred, what is the best way to acknowledge those honours within the existing historical and heritage framework?
4. Finally, if we reach that point with results to manage, what role might DND and the CF have?
As soon as you start with suggesting that the only worthy outcome is the award of battle honours to current units, or that anything "less" is unacceptable, you have already poisoned the discussion.
- Reaction score
- 22,658
- Points
- 1,090
Perhaps it is time for some "outside the box" thinkiong.
I propose a simple three step plan to solve this problem.
(1) Get a list of all units which claim to perpetuate units which participated in the war of 1812.
(2) Assemble them in Winnipeg on New Year's Eve, 2011.
(3) On New Year's Day 2012, using our newly-acquired C-17s and C130Js, airlift them in to South Dakota to invade and take control, then assign them all the battle Honour "2012 - South Dakota - to make you stop whining about 1812"
I propose a simple three step plan to solve this problem.
(1) Get a list of all units which claim to perpetuate units which participated in the war of 1812.
(2) Assemble them in Winnipeg on New Year's Eve, 2011.
(3) On New Year's Day 2012, using our newly-acquired C-17s and C130Js, airlift them in to South Dakota to invade and take control, then assign them all the battle Honour "2012 - South Dakota - to make you stop whining about 1812"
Even if it is not rewarded as a normal battle honour carried on the colours, there are other ways to wear a battle honour, such as Hackles wore by such units, or the oak leaves worn on shoulder titles by some units, or the leopard skins worn by bass drummers. The honour could be something as simple as a 1812 badge put in one of the corners of the colours and/or worn on DEU. Or they could go with a symbol of an eagle held in chains with 1812 written under it but I'm guessing that most likely wont get approved.
- Reaction score
- 5,593
- Points
- 1,360
The question I have from reading this thread is that I wonder if this whole thing is about honouring those past, or about massaging our modern-day egos?
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Lowlander said:
You are talking about Honorary Distinctions, which should not be viewed as way to sidestep the conditions of award for battle honours to try and achieve a similar result:
A-AD-200-000/AG-000, The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces
Jungle
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 430
Bruce Monkhouse said:
I agree; some units want the battle honour approved because it will be a historical event 200 years in the making that they will be able to brag about, while others are against the approval because their unit has no chance of getting it. And if they don't get it, why should others be honoured ?? I'm betting a lot of ResF COs are watching this debate very closely, hoping it happens on their watch and that they can turn this into a big parade and ceremonial event. :
But, why weren't battle honours awarded at the end of the conflict ? Nobody will be able to stand on parade and say "I was there", or knows anybody who was there; so what is the point ??
Like Bruce says, I think this is more about the egos of a few then about honouring the past.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,704
- Points
- 1,140
dapaterson said:
I like it. Can we have TV lead it and I will be the ISM (Invasion Sergeant Major).
Besides, I live near 17 Wing and its a short drive for me to get to the airhead.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
A few more thoughts on this discussion:
War of 1812 Recognition - Fallacies and tangents
1. The Emotional Argument
Notably at a time when public sensitivity to honouring soldiers is at a height, starting a discussion by pointing out the “killed and wounded” and proclaiming them “forgotten” is playing directly on the emotions of those who might find agreement easier than calling into question the intent of the project. For any who might question any part of the proposal, it them sets them up to be challenged that they are not supporting of the sacrifice of soldiers, and presents this as a means to sidestep the discussion of actual events and entitlements.
2. Proclaiming that the Award of Battle Honours as the Program's Objective
By doing so, the program organizers are not “seeking recognition of the Canadian Militia's role in the War of 1812”, they are, in fact, specifically seeking “the award of Battle Honours.” This approach invites, or in fact, requires the involvement of official consideration in the context of the award of Battle Honours.
This goal also immediately situates the estimate, and fails to acknowledge that due process may find that an alternative solution could have merit or provide a more fitting acknowledgement without challenging the historic precedents for honours and awards.
To put it in a comparative context, why should Canada award Battle Honours to a lengthy list of units who, through the sole connection of being raised in the same locations as War of 1812 units, when at the same time detailed analysis will be given to the suggestion of awards for Afghanistan. Would not both proposals be worthy of the same degree of consideration to ensure they are equally deserving of honours?
3. Avoiding Historical Precedents.
First and foremost, any entitlements for recognition should be measured in terms of the conditions for honours and awards in place at the time of the acts in question. If they can be shown to have been earned then, under the terms by which the soldiers were fighting on those battlefields, then there would be no need for qualifiers which may be seen as lessening the requirements for those honours. Ignoring the applicable conditions for awards of battle honours calls into question the validity of any suggested honours in relation to those which were awarded at the time.
Suggesting that the conditions for honours and awards are flexible and therefore can simply be set aside is to promote the idea that we can just ignore what we have expected soldiers and their regiments to achieve in past conflicts to be worthy of battle honours. Are their deeds so cheaply viewed that we can just stretch, or cast aside, any conditions merely to envelop those we want to see awarded?
Yes, the conditions for awards for battle honours have changed over the past few centuries, those applied within the British Army and those employed by Canadian military forces. Those conditions, however, flexible they might have been, existed in their own time and the appropriate guidance for considering the War of 1812 should start with the conditions for award at that time. If it can be shown that any unit was deserving under those terms and an honour not awarded, then a case can certainly be made to revisit the terms of the award.
4. Everyone gets a trophy
The Honour our 1812 Heroes Backgrounder lists 59 suggested battle honours in its Appendix B.
These include:
a. Eleven awards of “Detroit”, a battle where only one British Army regiment was so honoured.
b. Ten awards of “Queenston”, a battle where two British Army regiments were so honoured.
c. Four awards of “Miamit”, a battle where only one British Army regiment was so honoured.
d. Three awards of “Fort Niagara”, a battle where three British Army regiments were so honoured.
e. Sixteen awards of “Lundy's Lane”, a battle where seven British Army regiments were so honoured.
f. Five awards of “Fort Eire”, a battle where seven British Army regiments were so honoured.
g. Seven awards of “Chateauguay”, a battle where no British Army regiment was so honoured.
h. Four awards of “Queenston”, a battle where two British Army regiments were so honoured.
Source for confirmation of British Army battle honours: “Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies”, by Anthony Baker, pub. by Ian Allan Ltd., 1986.
Having selected only those actions of the War of 1812 for their proposal, the War of 1812 recognition project suggests that the Canadians should have been awarded 59 battle honours in comparison to the 23 awards to British regiments for those same actions. The breadth of this suggestion, coupled with a noticeable lack of any discussion of the actual roles played by the participating units suggests that the intent is to award attendance rather than any specific degree of participation in a battle or contribution to its success. If the proponents of this project are not willing to start with a proof of deserved recognition and then progress to how that might best be done, it only serves to undermine the value of any single award.
5. The Value of Process
The proponents of this proposal want to see the Canadian Militia units of the War of 1812 recognized, That is an honourable objective. Unfortunately, they have already decided that the acceptable solution is the award of battle honours – not specifically just in the name of those units which were there – but to existing units of the Canadian Forces.
This raises a number of questions that they wish any potential supporters to sidestep and dismiss with them:
a. Why were honours not awarded at the time?
b. What honours should have been awarded using the conditions for award at the time? (Should not an award of “DETROIT” to the “1st Middlesex Regiment” be provably as equally deserved as the one to 41st (Welsh) Regiment of Foot?)
c. How can units of the Canadian Militia in the War of 1812 be connected to existing unit when no precedent for perpetuation exists? (Inventing such connections it simply to create the connection ignores the historical foundations of the Canadian Army.)
d. If the accepted connections are based on localization; why does that have to be interpreted as lineage perpetuation?
e. Why is the only acceptable proposal battle honours to existing units and not a localized (and even formally tasked) responsibility to honour the heritage of locally raised units of the pre-Confederation era?
All of these issues, and more, can be addressed through an independent analysis with an intent to confirm a basis for honours, identify deserving units, and to recommend methods by which Canada (through the Department of Heritage, DND, local governments, etc.) can participate in suitable recognition. This may or may not lead to the proposal that battle honours be awarded in the name of War of 1812 units – which does not automatically mean they transfer to existing units. That, in itself, is a very different issue requiring its own analysis and consideration by the appropriate authorities.
6. If You Ain't With Us
One other issue that seems to be raising its head is the inference that this is an all or nothing proposal, and that any who fail to support it wholeheartedly are enemies of the good. Nothing could be further from the truth. The proposal to award battle honours to existing units for pre-Confederation Militia participation in the War of 1812 has so many layers of complexity that only through willing ignorance can blind support be offered. There are many who are deeply proud of Canada's military history. Equally, many of those proud supporters are equally uninterested in the finer details, and are willing to join the parade when it's proclaimed to be “supporting the troops” and “honouring heroes” because they belief that the foundation has been laid by those who call for support.
But what happens when the questions are not directed at the core suggestion (recognition of Canadian Militia in the War of 1812), but do question the method being proposed and how it was developed? The critical error here is the predetermination of how that recognition should be made and an assumption that everyone should simply agree with the plan.
The suggestion that anyone questioning the method is automatically against the heart of the proposal poisons the discussion and undermines any hope for debate by which a process can be developed that will satisfy all or most parties. Unfortunately, there is one main reason why some avoid discussion of process - it is because they may be afraid that a process built on historical example and precedent (because if we cannot respect our history in proposing changes to the way we view it, how can we expect anyone to respect the results) may not lead to their established end goals.
War of 1812 Recognition - Fallacies and tangents
1. The Emotional Argument
Notably at a time when public sensitivity to honouring soldiers is at a height, starting a discussion by pointing out the “killed and wounded” and proclaiming them “forgotten” is playing directly on the emotions of those who might find agreement easier than calling into question the intent of the project. For any who might question any part of the proposal, it them sets them up to be challenged that they are not supporting of the sacrifice of soldiers, and presents this as a means to sidestep the discussion of actual events and entitlements.
2. Proclaiming that the Award of Battle Honours as the Program's Objective
By doing so, the program organizers are not “seeking recognition of the Canadian Militia's role in the War of 1812”, they are, in fact, specifically seeking “the award of Battle Honours.” This approach invites, or in fact, requires the involvement of official consideration in the context of the award of Battle Honours.
This goal also immediately situates the estimate, and fails to acknowledge that due process may find that an alternative solution could have merit or provide a more fitting acknowledgement without challenging the historic precedents for honours and awards.
To put it in a comparative context, why should Canada award Battle Honours to a lengthy list of units who, through the sole connection of being raised in the same locations as War of 1812 units, when at the same time detailed analysis will be given to the suggestion of awards for Afghanistan. Would not both proposals be worthy of the same degree of consideration to ensure they are equally deserving of honours?
3. Avoiding Historical Precedents.
First and foremost, any entitlements for recognition should be measured in terms of the conditions for honours and awards in place at the time of the acts in question. If they can be shown to have been earned then, under the terms by which the soldiers were fighting on those battlefields, then there would be no need for qualifiers which may be seen as lessening the requirements for those honours. Ignoring the applicable conditions for awards of battle honours calls into question the validity of any suggested honours in relation to those which were awarded at the time.
Bill Smy said:
Suggesting that the conditions for honours and awards are flexible and therefore can simply be set aside is to promote the idea that we can just ignore what we have expected soldiers and their regiments to achieve in past conflicts to be worthy of battle honours. Are their deeds so cheaply viewed that we can just stretch, or cast aside, any conditions merely to envelop those we want to see awarded?
Yes, the conditions for awards for battle honours have changed over the past few centuries, those applied within the British Army and those employed by Canadian military forces. Those conditions, however, flexible they might have been, existed in their own time and the appropriate guidance for considering the War of 1812 should start with the conditions for award at that time. If it can be shown that any unit was deserving under those terms and an honour not awarded, then a case can certainly be made to revisit the terms of the award.
4. Everyone gets a trophy
The Honour our 1812 Heroes Backgrounder lists 59 suggested battle honours in its Appendix B.
These include:
a. Eleven awards of “Detroit”, a battle where only one British Army regiment was so honoured.
b. Ten awards of “Queenston”, a battle where two British Army regiments were so honoured.
c. Four awards of “Miamit”, a battle where only one British Army regiment was so honoured.
d. Three awards of “Fort Niagara”, a battle where three British Army regiments were so honoured.
e. Sixteen awards of “Lundy's Lane”, a battle where seven British Army regiments were so honoured.
f. Five awards of “Fort Eire”, a battle where seven British Army regiments were so honoured.
g. Seven awards of “Chateauguay”, a battle where no British Army regiment was so honoured.
h. Four awards of “Queenston”, a battle where two British Army regiments were so honoured.
Source for confirmation of British Army battle honours: “Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies”, by Anthony Baker, pub. by Ian Allan Ltd., 1986.
Having selected only those actions of the War of 1812 for their proposal, the War of 1812 recognition project suggests that the Canadians should have been awarded 59 battle honours in comparison to the 23 awards to British regiments for those same actions. The breadth of this suggestion, coupled with a noticeable lack of any discussion of the actual roles played by the participating units suggests that the intent is to award attendance rather than any specific degree of participation in a battle or contribution to its success. If the proponents of this project are not willing to start with a proof of deserved recognition and then progress to how that might best be done, it only serves to undermine the value of any single award.
5. The Value of Process
The proponents of this proposal want to see the Canadian Militia units of the War of 1812 recognized, That is an honourable objective. Unfortunately, they have already decided that the acceptable solution is the award of battle honours – not specifically just in the name of those units which were there – but to existing units of the Canadian Forces.
This raises a number of questions that they wish any potential supporters to sidestep and dismiss with them:
a. Why were honours not awarded at the time?
b. What honours should have been awarded using the conditions for award at the time? (Should not an award of “DETROIT” to the “1st Middlesex Regiment” be provably as equally deserved as the one to 41st (Welsh) Regiment of Foot?)
c. How can units of the Canadian Militia in the War of 1812 be connected to existing unit when no precedent for perpetuation exists? (Inventing such connections it simply to create the connection ignores the historical foundations of the Canadian Army.)
d. If the accepted connections are based on localization; why does that have to be interpreted as lineage perpetuation?
e. Why is the only acceptable proposal battle honours to existing units and not a localized (and even formally tasked) responsibility to honour the heritage of locally raised units of the pre-Confederation era?
All of these issues, and more, can be addressed through an independent analysis with an intent to confirm a basis for honours, identify deserving units, and to recommend methods by which Canada (through the Department of Heritage, DND, local governments, etc.) can participate in suitable recognition. This may or may not lead to the proposal that battle honours be awarded in the name of War of 1812 units – which does not automatically mean they transfer to existing units. That, in itself, is a very different issue requiring its own analysis and consideration by the appropriate authorities.
6. If You Ain't With Us
One other issue that seems to be raising its head is the inference that this is an all or nothing proposal, and that any who fail to support it wholeheartedly are enemies of the good. Nothing could be further from the truth. The proposal to award battle honours to existing units for pre-Confederation Militia participation in the War of 1812 has so many layers of complexity that only through willing ignorance can blind support be offered. There are many who are deeply proud of Canada's military history. Equally, many of those proud supporters are equally uninterested in the finer details, and are willing to join the parade when it's proclaimed to be “supporting the troops” and “honouring heroes” because they belief that the foundation has been laid by those who call for support.
But what happens when the questions are not directed at the core suggestion (recognition of Canadian Militia in the War of 1812), but do question the method being proposed and how it was developed? The critical error here is the predetermination of how that recognition should be made and an assumption that everyone should simply agree with the plan.
The suggestion that anyone questioning the method is automatically against the heart of the proposal poisons the discussion and undermines any hope for debate by which a process can be developed that will satisfy all or most parties. Unfortunately, there is one main reason why some avoid discussion of process - it is because they may be afraid that a process built on historical example and precedent (because if we cannot respect our history in proposing changes to the way we view it, how can we expect anyone to respect the results) may not lead to their established end goals.
- Reaction score
- 5,593
- Points
- 1,360
Nicely put Michael.
I fail to see how just one large celebration of those who were brave enough to answer the call back then is not enough.
Why does it need to be about the modern-day us?
I fail to see how just one large celebration of those who were brave enough to answer the call back then is not enough.
Why does it need to be about the modern-day us?
- Reaction score
- 3,515
- Points
- 1,160
Jim Seggie said:
Need a Signaller? >
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,704
- Points
- 1,140
PuckChaser said:Need a Signaller? >
Why of course!
I hereby, with the power of the ISM, dub the the IS - Invasion Signaller.
I need an IPA - Invasion PA and of course and IPAO - Invasion PAO. Any volunteers?
- Reaction score
- 2,579
- Points
- 1,260
I thought you were looking for India Pale Ale.....Jim Seggie said:
- Reaction score
- 9,315
- Points
- 1,260
Excellent post Michael, especially the bit on the total number of awards proposed (almost double the British).
I have no doubt that the proponents of this have good intentions, but their lack of understanding of the system and intent behind battle honours is quite obvious; Michael O'Leary's post layed that fact bare for all to see.
I concur with Bruce that we have a little pomp and ceremony for the event. Let's let DHH focus on Afghanistan, where there is a real case for Battle Honours that has to be worked out, and not bother them with this stuff.
I have no doubt that the proponents of this have good intentions, but their lack of understanding of the system and intent behind battle honours is quite obvious; Michael O'Leary's post layed that fact bare for all to see.
I concur with Bruce that we have a little pomp and ceremony for the event. Let's let DHH focus on Afghanistan, where there is a real case for Battle Honours that has to be worked out, and not bother them with this stuff.
- Reaction score
- 22,658
- Points
- 1,090
milnews.ca said:
Only after we've secured Pierre. Then we're getting the good stuff:
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
A few more thoughts on this discussion:
War of 1812 Recognition - Fallacies and tangents
7. Refuse Debate.
A quick Google search for "Honour our 1812 Heroes" will show that they have a website, and are also active in facebook, twitter and yahoo. None of these, however, notably not the website, offer any invitation to engage in debate or discussion. The only option they desire is for members of the public to blindly accept their position and support it through an automated e-mail to the Minister of National Defence. In case anyone wishes to use that e-mail to offer a different opinion to the Minister, the e-mail also includes the proponents of the site as an additional addressee (but you have to notice that on the e-mail, the webpage doesn't say it will).
It is still possible, however, to click the link, change to subject to something like "I am concerned - War of 1812 Battle Honours" and amend the text to offer concerns about the method being proposed. One could also send a link to this thread, one of the few places on the net where this subject has actually been discussed or debated at all.
War of 1812 Recognition - Fallacies and tangents
7. Refuse Debate.
A quick Google search for "Honour our 1812 Heroes" will show that they have a website, and are also active in facebook, twitter and yahoo. None of these, however, notably not the website, offer any invitation to engage in debate or discussion. The only option they desire is for members of the public to blindly accept their position and support it through an automated e-mail to the Minister of National Defence. In case anyone wishes to use that e-mail to offer a different opinion to the Minister, the e-mail also includes the proponents of the site as an additional addressee (but you have to notice that on the e-mail, the webpage doesn't say it will).
It is still possible, however, to click the link, change to subject to something like "I am concerned - War of 1812 Battle Honours" and amend the text to offer concerns about the method being proposed. One could also send a link to this thread, one of the few places on the net where this subject has actually been discussed or debated at all.
Similar threads
