# Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread



## military granny

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=c46ef2f9-03dc-4a40-847f-6b68be1cef3c&k=26029

OTTAWA (CP) - A small group of Canadian veterans, moved by the steady stream of casualties returning from the battlefields of Afghanistan, is urging the Conservative government to formally recognize wounded soldiers with a medal. 

Every time a Canadian is injured - physically or mentally - by hostile fire they are eligible for a wound stripe, which is a piece of gold braid sewn on to dress uniforms. 

It is what the military calls a "dress distinction" and is not considered a decoration - which a handful of veterans want to see changed to something similar to the Purple Heart awarded to U.S. service members. 

"I think we should appreciate everyone who goes over there and stands in harm's way," said Murray Sinnott, an ex-soldier and retired city police officer from Windsor, Ont. 

*more on link*


----------



## Trinity

oh.. isn't that a can of worms.

Sure, physical injuries are easy to spot.
Mental injuries.... very hard to determine PLUS who would want
to wear a medal they received for having PTSD.  Who wants that
reminder on their chest or would want to admit they had PTSD in 
fear of others thinking they were weak?

A can of worms my friend.


----------



## military granny

Yes Padre it could be a very big can of something.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Trinity said:
			
		

> oh.. isn't that a can of worms.
> 
> Sure, physical injuries are easy to spot.
> Mental injuries.... very hard to determine PLUS who would want
> to wear a medal they received for having PTSD.  Who wants that
> reminder on their chest or would want to admit they had PTSD in
> fear of others thinking they were weak?
> 
> A can of worms my friend.



Uhm,

Is it awarded this way to the Americans?

I mean do their troops get it for PTSD?  Be interesting to know, as we could base it on thier criteria.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

I can honestly say I like the distinction of my wound stripe.
It's quiet and undersated, but speaks loudly to those who matter most my fellow soldiers. I have no need to broadcast my past to random civilians on a parade, or anyone who see's me in DEU's.

I appreciate the sentiment but the wound stripe is just fine.


----------



## Trinity

I believe its wounds received from the enemy.

I shall now go and VERIFY to ensure i have the correct info.

I don't agree with idea of issuing to soldiers mental trauma due to the stigma as well 
as other possible issues with it. But, I'm still fairly fresh on this debate.. who knows!?!



edit   

The Purple Heart

A. Established by General George Washington -- known as the "Badge of Military Merit"-- on August 7, 1782. Revived as the Purple Heart in 1932 by General Douglas MacArthur (War Department General Orders No. 3, as amended (reference (ttt)) and Navy authority is Executive Order 9277 (reference )). b. Awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Forces, after April 5, 1917, has been wounded, killed, or who has died or may hereafter die of wounds received under any of the following circumstances:

(1) In action against an enemy of the United States.
(2) In action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.
(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.
(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.
(6) After March 28, 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States.
(7) After March 28, 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.
(8) A Service member who is killed or wounded in action as the result of action by friendly weapon fue while directly engaged in armed conflict, other than as a result of an act of an enemy of the U. S., unless (in the case of a wound) the wound is the result of willful misconduct of the member under Section 1129, title 10, U.S.C. (reference (uuu)).
(9) Before April 25, 1962, while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) in the same manner as a former prisoner of war who is wounded on or after that date while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive under Section 521, DoD Authorization Act for 1996 (reference (vvv)).


----------



## Trinity

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I can honestly say I like the distinction of my wound stripe.
> It's quiet and undersated, but speaks loudly to those who matter most my fellow soldiers. I have no need to broadcast my past to random civilians on a parade, or anyone who see's me in DEU's.
> 
> I appreciate the sentiment but the wound stripe is just fine.



The soldier has the choice to or not to put on the wound stripe.  If a soldier was issued
a medal, it would be a requirement.  If the guidelines do state mental trauma is a reason
and the soldier doesn't want to disclose his medical (mental or physical injury) and we
force them to wear a medal..... not a happy situation.


----------



## tomahawk6

Padre you are correct, the Purple Heart is awarded to soldiers wounded in combat and is also awarded to soldiers killed in action.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Definitely something that must be looked at closely.  I mean their hearts are in the right place, but we must closely look at the method of awarding.  Maybe the moving of the stripe to a position and status of a medal.

Unfortunately, although I am a huge defender of the soldier that suffers OSI, I do not believe it deserves a medal of recognition.  Recognition of treatment is what is needed.

dileas

tess


----------



## Trinity

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Recognition of treatment is what is needed.



+1


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Another attempt to introduce a US tradition when we have a perfectly valid one of our own - a pet peeve of mine, I must admit.  HoM has it exactly right, IMHO...


----------



## the 48th regulator

However,

Be advised that the current criteria for the wounded stripe does include OSI.

_i. Operational stress injuries may qualify for a wound stripe if treatment of not less than one week in hospital (or equivalent) is the direct result of a traumatic incident caused by hostile forces in a combat zone. _  

So it does open a can if one is forced to wear it.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

Which were not thankfully forced to wear unless we want to.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Meh,

Mine are in the drawer of my desk.

People can see the actual marks Ii am proud of wearing....if I get a short haircut that is.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

+1 Tess, only thiose there were tger or have been through it will really ever understand.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

I wore mine proudly on my DEU until I released for those wounds and threw them out with my DEU jacket. That I now regret.

I have to agree with Teddy....that's twice now that I agree with the bear, stop the insanity! But he is right we are becoming to Americanized. HitorMiss is also right we don't need to prove anything to the parade paparazzi.

I do wish though that they brought back the lapel pin for those of us that are out of uniform.
On the PTSD issue it is touchy but IMHO I dont think we ned to issue one for that.


----------



## McG

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I am not sure what that really means, but the U.S. military is not the only one that gives out recognition (whether a medal, wound stripe, or a pin my grandfather received for king and empire).  Seems to me that the CDN military needs to be progressive and adapt some of their traditions,


We do give out a wound stripe.  Why do we need to turn it in for a wound medal?


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> We do give out a wound stripe.  Why do we need to turn it in for a wound medal?



Yes we do, and perhaps some Vets are wanting to prove it by wearing a medal on their blazers or shirts at all those Veteran's functions.......not having a Tunic any longer.

I find it curious how we have been hearing nothing from the Press except condemnation of how we are following the Americans in everything; Foreign Policy, Military Actions, Commerce, etc........and now they are proposing that we adopt an American style medal to signify being wounded in action.......what side of the fence are they on?


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Thats why I suggested we bring back the lapel pin.


----------



## Infanteer

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Another attempt to introduce a US tradition when we have a perfectly valid one of our own - a pet peeve of mine, I must admit.  HoM has it exactly right, IMHO...



+1

The wound stripe has a tradition spanning almost 100 years and 4 Canadian wars (and countless other campaigns).  Why would we get rid of it?

Now to bring back the service chevrons and perhaps some gorget patches for Teddy Ruxpin....


----------



## George Wallace

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Thats why I suggested we bring back the lapel pin.



Actually.....Doesn't the RCR Kit Shop sell the pins........unofficial pins?


----------



## geo

Still have my grand dad's "for service at the front" lapel pin.
on the back it states that to wear it without having earned it would bring ya a 500$ fine
serialized too.....


----------



## the 48th regulator

I would wear a medal though.  Heck, bring one in, one more to add on.  And make it a nice one.

dileas

tess


----------



## RHFC_piper

I don't even know where my wound stripe is supposed to go on my DEU's.

Neither does the RSM of my Regiment...  ???

As for the medal... hell... I was only in the sandbox for 3 weeks before getting strafed by A-10's.
It may well be the only medal I get...
Well...  except for the 2 pieces next to my kidneys. (the only ones that matter)


----------



## HItorMiss

Piper left sleeve above the wrist but I'll find out 100% soonest.

PM inbound as well

PS: right sleeve Gunner link answered it


----------



## Gunner

There was a good thread on the wound stripe, take a look as I think it provides the reference of where to wear it.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31133.0.html


----------



## RHFC_piper

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Piper left sleeve abpve the wrist but I'll find out 100% soonest.



Thanks.  

BTW.. were you in our room, in Landstuhl, when that 4 star General was handing out the coins, or did he catch you in the computer room? 
(I was on lots of morphine... I don't remember if you were in the room... I just remember the coin and his rant)
Anyway, He asked me what Canadians recieved for being wounded in combat and I told him about the wound stripe.
His response was pretty impressive... I won't repeat it due to the surprising amount of profanity.  But, he went into a rant about how he wanted to ensure that all Canadian soldiers wounded in Afghanistan would at least recieve a "purple heart"... Possibly a Bronze star as well...
I found this very amusing...  probably due to the morphine... He seemed pretty upset about the whole 'lack of medal' thing...
I was too mesmerized by the sparkly coin.

After enquiring about it, I learned that foreign medals cannot officially be worn on DEUs (According to the RSM of LFCA HQ anyway)
Anyone have any thoughts on this one?  Have any Canadian soldiers been officially issued medals from the US?  I remember reading something somewhere about the US wanting to issue Silver stars to CF snipers for their support in Afghanistan, but the article didn't specify weather or not they were actually issued the medals or if they're allowed to wear them.

Any thoughts?  or have I just stirred up the wasps nest?


----------



## HItorMiss

Piper yeah I was there, but the RSM is wrong, well not totally wrong just mostly.. you can wear a foreign medal if it is approved by Ottawa before hand like the PPCLI soldiers who received the bronze star for actions in Afghanistan on 2002.

However on further thought it's also something to look into as well as the wound strip thing, Yet one more question I'll get back to you on ASAP.


----------



## RHFC_piper

Gunner said:
			
		

> There was a good thread on the wound stripe, take a look as I think it provides the reference of where to wear it.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/31133.0.html



This link pretty much answers both questions...

Cheers.


----------



## Gunner

> He seemed pretty upset about the whole 'lack of medal' thing...



Our honours and awards system, based on our traditions, are different.



> After enquiring about it, I learned that foreign medals cannot officially be worn on DEUs (According to the RSM of LFCA HQ anyway) Anyone have any thoughts on this one?  Have any Canadian soldiers been officially issued medals from the US?



There is a well established diplomatic method for CF members to be authorized to wear foreign medals.  It takes awhile but it does work.  Quite a few Canadians (some would cynically say most), sr NCOs and sr officers, who serve with US forces are awarded Bronze Stars and Meritorious Service Medals.  The other part of this question, is if a Canadian does something brave or meritorious, there is a Canadian system of recognition for that person.  

Bottom line, the US has a system that works for them and is based on their history.  I'm not yet ready to throw out or system simply so people can have more medals on their chest.  Leave that for commemorative medals....   :


----------



## Gunner

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> This link pretty much answers both questions...
> Cheers.



Now that I reread the thread, there is a lot of crap in there as well.  Sorry about that, you'll have to read between to get at the good discussion.


----------



## RHFC_piper

Gunner said:
			
		

> Now that I reread the thread, there is a lot of crap in there as well.  Sorry about that, you'll have to read between to get at the good discussion.



I did... I found what I need... wound stripe on lower right sleeve of the uniform...

As for the medals... I'm not going to lose sleep over it... I'll get a CD in 4 years either way.


----------



## geo

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> As for the medal... hell... I was only in the sandbox for 3 weeks before getting strafed by A-10's.
> It may well be the only medal I get...
> Well...  except for the 2 pieces next to my kidneys. (the only ones that matter)


If memory serves me right, if you were wounded over there and reptriated for said reason, you should be entitled to the medal that everyone on the Roto gets.......
gotta look this up!!!


----------



## cplcaldwell

geo, see my bolding in the body of the text, this is the first reference I can find, maybe not the best, but official, located at this link


*General Service Medal
General Campaign Star*
The GCS will be awarded to CF members and to members of allied forces working with the CF who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy.

The GSM will be awarded to CF members and to members of allied forces working with the CF who deploy outside Canada and provide direct support on a full-time basis to operations in the presence of an armed enemy. The GSM may also be awarded to Canadian citizens who are not CF members and who are deployed outside Canada, either in or outside of a theatre of operation, and working with the CF to provide direct support on a full-time basis to operations in the presence of an armed enemy.

When you first receive the GCS or GSM, it will be awarded with a bar specifying the operation on which you have deployed. Awards marking subsequent service will consist of a bar only, to be added to your original star or medal and bar.

*If you have served honourably, you are eligible for either award, even if you were repatriated for medical reasons directly attributable to your service. Personnel who die during their service and whose deaths are attributable to that service are also eligible.* Either the star or the medal will be awarded for service on a specific operation – service in different theatres of operation or areas cannot be combined to meet eligibility requirements for either award.

Your GCS or GSM will be engraved with your service number, abbreviated rank, initials and surname. The rank engraved will be the rank you held at the time of the eligible service, not necessarily your current rank. Civilian recipients’ full names will be engraved.

If you are a serving CF member, the CO of your current unit will apply on your behalf. If you are a civilian, the CO of the unit with which you were serving will apply on your behalf. If you are a retired CF member or civilian, you yourself may apply:


----------



## RHFC_piper

Found some info on the wound stripe

*How do I wear my wound stripe?*
A wound stripe is worn on the left sleeve of undress and Service Dress jackets only, positioned either 12 cm above the bottom of the sleeve or 1.2 cm above an existing badge. Visit http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dhh/downloads/cfps/cfp265.pdf (Intranet users only) and view figure 3-6-1 on page 119 of the CF Dress Instructions.

Well... there it is...


----------



## HItorMiss

Ha I was right the first time, I gotta stop doubting myself  ;D


----------



## Journeyman

And for you folks that, a) forgot to duck, and b) are into fancy costumes, Joe Drouin (airborne kitshop) will be more than happy to sell you Mess Kit wound stripes.  ;D  www.joedrouin.com


----------



## warrickdll

Noticing that no one is arguing to just get rid of the Wound Stripe - everyone seems favourable to having a distinction for those wounded. So Badge or Medal? With there being no Right or Wrong on this we get plenty of opinion.

The Badge has been cited for the following (- I include a response to each):

	1) The option of not wearing it.
	- If we wanted to we could apply the same rule to a medal.

	2) Being wounded rates a badge rather than a medal.
	- Merely opinion, I disagree, but I would say Champion Shot rates a badge rather than a medal.

	3) The Americans don't use it.
	- True, but I thought we had moved past that line of reasoning. 
	Maybe a better statement would have been "just because the US does it a different way doesn't mean we have to change".

	4) 90+ years of off-and-on use by Canada.
	- Hmmm... hard to argue with that, but then again it isn't quite a clincher (and the stripe wasn't a Canadian idea to begin with was it?)


I believe medals are better than stripes as a way of displaying this kind of information (campaigns, valour, merit), but there are no concrete reasons - only preferences. 

Medals (ribbons) scale better when wearing short sleeves then Long Sleeve arm badges do. And, without cuffs, the Wound Stripe just seems misplaced on the DEUs.

As for what actual medal to use...


> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060921/medals_wounded_060921/20060921/
> Sinnott envisions a distinctive, enamelled crimson maple leaf set against a white background.


Well... I'm pretty Maple Leaf'd out, but there are plenty of options for the ribbon - you could stick with the suggestion in the article of white with a red device or; red with a black device (reminiscent of a poppy); black with a red device (inverse of a poppy); or purple and tie it into the Memorial Cross. Anyways... the details aren't the deciding factor.




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...Now to bring back the service chevrons[/url] and perhaps some gorget patches...


It's not like I'm strongly opposed to the Wound Stripe, but the old ways are not always the best ways, some military fashions/styles just fade. Medals (and their ribbons) are an efficient way to display (and honour) this information and have a lot of cross-cultural understanding not only between nations but by civilians as well, and will probably be a fixture on military uniforms for many years.


----------



## Red 6

Hey ya'll: Decorations such as the Silver Star, Bronze Star, etc, can be awarded to Allied service members, as you already know. Somebody asked a question further up on whether the Purple Heart can be awarded to Allied service members. Here's your answer:

a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded-

      (1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.

      (2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.

      (3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

      (4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.

      (5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force

      (6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.

      (7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.


----------



## armyvern

Granny,

You should make a yes or no poll out of this thread. We'll then see what the consensus is!!


----------



## military granny

I dont know how to do that but if any of you mods want to then feel free to do so.


----------



## Franko

As per your request Granny


----------



## the 48th regulator

I say Aye,

dileas

tess


----------



## Babbling Brooks

I wanted to add a couple of points I haven't seen made already.

First, the wound stripe is far more flexible than a medal would be.

You _have_ to wear your medals.  You _choose_ to wear a wound stripe.  Can you imagine someone with PTSD awarded a medal and being forced to wear it?  Or someone who had their private parts taken out?  Right now, they would be awarded a wound stripe with the option of a private or public ceremony, and the option of wearing it or not.

And you can wear the wound stripe on civilian clothing - once you've been granted the dress distinction, you can wear it on a shirt sleeve to a pub if you wish.  Can't do that with a medal.

Second, if you're looking for a concise summary, with links to resources on the topic, I put up a post over at The Torch a few months back that covers things reasonably well: http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/03/wound-stripe.html

Not that my opinion should count for much, but I don't see anything wrong with our current tradition.  It puts choice back in the hands of the wounded soldier.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> And you can wear the wound stripe on civilian clothing - once you've been granted the dress distinction, you can wear it on a shirt sleeve to a pub if you wish.  Can't do that with a medal.



You can wear medals on civvilian dress, such as a suit actually.

dileas

tess


----------



## 1feral1

IN my opinion, I think they should leave things the way there are. We need no more de-Canadianising of the CF. Our customs and traditions should always remain tightly guarded and close to the heart.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> You can wear medals on civvilian dress, such as a suit actually.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Sorry, I should have been more clear.  What I was getting at was that you can wear a wound stripe in situations where you don't want to wear a bank of decorations on your chest, or where wearing those decorations would be considered inappropriate (ie. situations where medals or even ribbons weren't being worn).


----------



## the 48th regulator

If you are in a situation where you would be wearing a wound stripe, then you better well be wearing your medals.

I do not wear my wound stripe, as we adopt one that must be sewn on, which is not what I would like to do with my suit.  That is my reasoning.

I like the idea of an award such as a medal, hell if they went thorught the effort to award me something, then I might as well wear it.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

I like my wound strip for the reason's I stated earlier.

And when I retire I'll pull it off my DEU's and frame it next to some of the metal they pulled out of me, with a little plaque that says "DUCK"


----------



## Trinity

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> And when I retire I'll pull it of my DEU'sand frame it next to some of the metal they pulled out of me, with a little plaque that says "DUCK"



As opposed to the other UCK word you said when you got hit?!?!?!


----------



## HItorMiss

You mean tne one that start's with an F?

or the one that starts with L? as in " Those UCKY SOB's"


----------



## the 48th regulator

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I like my wound strip for the reason's I stated earlier.
> 
> And when I retire I'll pull it of my DEU'sand frame it next to some of the metal they pulled out of me, with a little plaque that says "DUCK"



Hmmm,

I like that Idea.

See your not jsut a pretty face after all.

I was going to doa shadow box, of items.

dileas

tess


----------



## boondocksaint

Wound stripe or medal, an arguement for either can be made, certainly nothing wrong with the stripe as it is now, nor would a medal be out of order

I dont see how an arguement of 'it's too American, or de-Canadianized' are in keeping with todays modern army, reforms are needed, outside influence is needed, or we run the risk of becoming stale and left behind, and relegated to the hated 'peacekeeping' word,

the Taliban sure know who we are, our allies know who we are, Canadians know it as well, Im sure a stripe or a medal isnt going to change that


----------



## 1feral1

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> Wound stripe or medal, an arguement for either can be made, certainly nothing wrong with the stripe as it is now, nor would a medal be out of order
> 
> I dont see how an arguement of 'it's too American, or de-Canadianized' are in keeping with todays modern army, reforms are needed, outside influence is needed, or we run the risk of becoming stale and left behind, and relegated to the hated 'peacekeeping' word,



Sorry for being a bit harsh, but your words drew up some emotion.

Reforms? Outside influence? Run risks of being left behind? Becoming stale? Today's modern army? I disagree. I am almost insulted at your remarks. 
Wes


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> If you are in a situation where you would be wearing a wound stripe, then you better well be wearing your medals.



No offence intended, but that's where the wound stripe has an advantage.  It's up to the recipient to determine where and when he or she wants to wear it - separate from the rest of one's decorations.

The fact that you've chosen not to wear it, which should be respected, is an example of that advantage as well.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> No offence intended, but that's where the wound stripe has an advantage.  It's up to the recipient to determine where and when he or she wants to wear it - separate from the rest of one's decorations.
> 
> The fact that you've chosen not to wear it, which should be respected, is an example of that advantage as well.



That is true.  But I was one of the few that voted for  medal....so  I am biased yet agree with your posts.

dileas

tess


----------



## boondocksaint

Hopefully not hijacking thread

Im not sure which part of my post was insulting ( WES ), certainly was not its intent, some clarity perhaps;

-we are among the best equiped and best trained militaries in the world- and up until VERY recently, under-employed- our tactics grew stale, we didnt know how to employ our LAV's on the new battlefield in training and often our tactics were our own ( left up to our discretion)-NOT doctrinal and certainly not some form of 'tradition'
-we also benifited greatly by having visits during our training by various Americans currently deployed and picking their brains on what works and doesnt work

Did that make us less Canadian? obviously not. Did we learn valuable lessons from them and incorporate them into our own ideas- yes, we'd be fools not to listen to soldiers who've aquired vastly more experience then we have- and by making these things Canadian, they became better ( we felt anyway )

You ( WES ) mentioned strong emotions being evoked, as are mine everytime I see/hear/read a slight or jab or a lightly flavored "American" comment, a case can be made for a medal or a stripe, using 'Americanization' as an arguement always bothers me, and that was the  reason for my response

Hopefully no further insult is taken, it certainly isnt what Im going for here- I generally get flamed for my ideas surrounding most things 'American'- Im taking medication for it


----------



## silentbutdeadly

;D me too, medication that is!...........but i agree with BDS. I was reading another thread on the term "Sandbox" which everyone loves and its American, thats where i first heard it, anyways we tend to adopt American ideas on certain things, but then cut down on other. Yes the wound stripe is fine, but hey if they wanna give a medal too, why not, but don't hate it because its " an American thing". Thats all time to take my pills!


----------



## tomahawk6

The wound stripe is in keeping with Canada's British military heritage. In fact the US awarded the wound chevron between 1918-32, at which time the Purple Heart was created.


----------



## warrickdll

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> the 48th regulator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are in a situation where you would be wearing a wound stripe, then you better well be wearing your medals....
> 
> 
> 
> No offence intended, but that's where the wound stripe has an advantage.  It's up to the recipient to determine where and when he or she wants to wear it - separate from the rest of one's decorations.
> 
> The fact that you've chosen not to wear it, which should be respected, is an example of that advantage as well.
Click to expand...


I'd like to single out the "optional" line of reasoning (while others cover the American one) - if Canada were to create a medal to be awarded to those wounded then wouldn't Canada be able to state that the wearing of the medal was optional? 

If you're suggesting that there is a Canadian regulation preventing any medal from being optional then couldn't Canada modify that regulation for this proposed one?


And couldn't the "wear it whenever advantage" be applied to everything (all badges no medals)? I see it the opposite way - the medals format keeps these items in their proper place and at the proper times. 

Using stripes or chevrons to indicate Service Time or Wounded Service were cost effective measures that suited the British uniforms of the day. Keep in mind that medals, other than the VC and Campaign medals, for Other Ranks (NCMs) and junior officers were just being thought out.


----------



## McG

Is it possible to introduce an award that retroactively replaces another (ie. everyone that has been awarded a wound stripe would be awarded the wounded medal & the stripe would "go away") or would we see different recognition based on the date of injury?


----------



## big bad john

MCG said:
			
		

> Is it possible to introduce an award that retroactively replaces another (ie. everyone that has been awarded a wound stripe would be awarded the wounded medal & the stripe would "go away") or would we see different recognition based on the date of injury?



This has been done in the past in the UK and in Canada in days gone by (pre '67).


----------



## McG

I know of medal retroactively awarded on their creation, but when has such a medal retroactively usurped (be this positive or negative) a previous award?


----------



## warrickdll

The George Cross as an example:

From http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group01/gc
The cross was awarded for an act of the greatest heroism or of the most conspicuous courage in circumstances of extreme danger. It was intended primarily for civilians and award in the military services was confined to actions for which purely military honours were not normally granted and awarded for actions not in the face of the enemy.

The Empire Gallantry awards were exchanged for the George Cross, and in 1971, Albert Medal winners exchanged their medals for the George Cross.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> If you're suggesting that there is a Canadian regulation preventing any medal from being optional then couldn't Canada modify that regulation for this proposed one?



Iterator, you make a good point: we can make the reg's for a new medal say anything we want.  But if we're going to make it just like the wound stripe reg's, with all the flexibility that implies, then why the push for a medal?  If all the circumstances surrounding its awarding and wear remain the same, you're simply exchanging a piece of braid on the sleeve for a piece of metal on the chest.  A worthwhile trade if you value the metal more than the braid, I guess.

You could make the argument that the distinctive braid, in an exclusive position on the cuff of uniform and civilian dress, makes the wound stripe all the more special.  It doesn't get lost in a sea of campaign medals, long-service decorations, or stuck behind medals for valour.



> And couldn't the "wear it whenever advantage" be applied to everything (all badges no medals)? I see it the opposite way - the medals format keeps these items in their proper place and at the proper times.



Perhaps you're correct, and recognition for wounds should only be worn with other distinctions.  But that line of argument lumps recognition for a wound in with all the other recognitions you wear on your chest.  As it stands, they have their place, and the wound stripe has its own - no greater or lesser, but simply different.

My bottom line is this: I don't know that the soldier, or the CF, or the Canadian people gain anything by telling a wounded service member that they _have_ to wear a symbol of their trauma in uniform, or _have_ to wear it with the rest of their decorations.  As I understand it, a wound is a very personal thing, and so I believe it should be left as much as possible to the wounded to determine how they want to recognize their own sacrifice.


----------



## Michael OLeary

If some are unhappy with the wound stripe, perhaps because it's only on the service drewss and not worn after retirement, then why does the alternative have to be a new medal.  Why not a device worn on the medal ribbon of the applicable operation? The old "Mentioned in Despatches" oak leaf emblem was worn in such a manner. (http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group03/vm18) It also makes it easier to maintain the "discretionary wear" option.


----------



## tomahawk6

It may sound odd to the unitiated,but a combat wound is viewed as a badge of honor. Decorations let all soldiers know a man/woman's military service at a glance where he has been,the honors he has earned. A soldier with a wound decoration gets a bit more respect from his fellow soldiers.


----------



## redleafjumper

The other point to consider which has been alluded to in earlier posts, is that the Memorial Cross is already awarded to the closest relative of the deceased soldier.  In the US, the family would get the Purple Heart, so they aren't completely comparable.  I'm personally okay with the wound stripes and some sort of civilian wear pin, or perhaps even Michael's suggestion which could be a small red cross or other suitable device added to the ribbon of the medal for the campaign in which the wounding occurred.  

Personally, I don't add a stigma to those who's wound was psychological.  Some soldiers from WW1 and WW2 as well as Korea never left the hospital, but didn't have a visible mark on them, and others ended up as street people.  They were clearly altered by their wound(s), even though it was a mental one.

Part of the 'stigma' may be that many consider a wound that bleeds to be a sign of bravery.  It may well mean that, but it may just mean that one was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  If the purpose is to recognize the wounding as part of ones service, then the wound stripes already do that.  The Memorial Cross recognizes the ultimate sacrifice and I don't believe that another medal serves our traditions.


----------



## warrickdll

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> ...we can make the reg's for a new medal say anything we want.  But if we're going to make it just like the wound stripe reg's, with all the flexibility that implies, then why the push for a medal?  ...



I agree, the stripe and the medal would be exactly the same distinction but in different formats. 
And, given that the Wound Stripe has been used intermittently by Canada in the past, there will be a strong "Don't fix it if it ain't broke!" side to the idea. 

On the pro-change side there is the anomalous nature and general unportability of the stripe - making it more distinctive to some - and to others it leads them to the medals format solution. Not much of a reason I admit.


But the decision will be influenced where well meaning Canadians will want to extend an open acknowledgement of appreciation to those who have been wounded. Probably, to most civilians (even if informed of the Wound Stripe), a medal is the form of acknowledgement that they would find applicable.

This may go the way of the CPSM - a well meaning attempt by some Canadians to acknowledge the service of the military - but the CPSM, in my opinion, doesn't quite fit. I can see a medal for those wounded being the kind of idea that will see fruition. I think we should embrace the idea, and start thinking about implementation.


----------



## reccecrewman

Perhaps another thing that could be done is to scrap the GCS entirely.  Go back to to stamping theatre specific campaign stars. A true 5 point campaign star with the current monarchs cypher in the centre.  That would also bring the requirements back to 1 day served in said theatre to make allowances for troops wounded or killed in action prior to serving 30 days in theatre.  Perhaps a bar saying AFGHANISTAN for the GCS with 30 days in theatre being required (Much like the WWII 1939-45 service medal, but I believe it was 28 days in theatre)  Then separate true campaign stars for different theatres Canadian soldiers fight in.  I've taken this far enough off track now, but I believe our soldiers deserve the recognition of a true theatre specific campaign star.  In WWII there was the 1939-45 campaign star and any soldier who served in any theatre from 3 Sep 1939 and 2 Sep 1945 for a period of 6 months in an operational command were awarded this star, on top of campaign stars for additional theatres they served in ie; PACIFIC STAR, ITALY STAR, NORTH-WEST EUROPE STAR etc.  Theatre specific stars were for 1 day service in the theatre.  On the wound stripe issue, I'm sure any Canadian soldier (Hit Or Miss is a fine example) would much rather have the wound stripe - and I hope we hang onto that tradition.  I know when I see that stripe, he or she has gone through hell for it, and to a soldier that's recognition enough. My .02

Regards


----------



## Jacqueline

I think the Purple Heart or the wound stripe is appropriate.


----------



## ArmyFlyingSailor651

I believe that the current way of having a wounded stripe is all that's needed.  After that, let's concentrate on the people getting the help they need.


----------



## HItorMiss

AFS, The guys are getting plenty of great care, thank you for thinking about them though. 

As for the wound stripe it doesn't seem that people are against it just that they don't think it's current format is distinctive enough. Somewhere on one of the pages here I think I saw an idea about about a thin red stripe going around the cuff, I'm not opposed to that concept. Tradition is good but it can be updated and still be traditional.


----------



## Red 6

Just out of curiosity, do any other Commonwealth forces use wound stripes?


----------



## big bad john

Red 6 said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, do any other Commonwealth forces use wound stripes?



Yes, the UK Forces.


----------



## orange.paint

BBJ do they wear it in the same fashion?Is it the same size etc?


----------



## big bad john

I was very hurt, that HitorMiss didn't show me his.  I almost took my ball and went home.  Seriously, I have never seen the Canadian Wound Stripe, so...

Below is a picture of a WWI Irish Guards Lance Corporal with Wound Stripes. As a Lance Corporal in the Guards, he wears stripes on both sleeves, as opposed to the rest of the army where lance corporals wore only one set of stripes on the right sleeve.  In the Guards there is no rank of 'corporal.'  He also wears a pair of cloth wound stripes on his left sleeve.


----------



## HItorMiss

BBJ they do look very similar,

BBJ I'll make sure you see mine soonest!


----------



## big bad john

big bad john said:
			
		

> I was very hurt, that HitorMiss didn't show me his.  I almost took my ball and went home.  Seriously, I have never seen the Canadian Wound Stripe, so...
> 
> Below is a picture of a WWI Irish Guards Lance Corporal with Wound Stripes. As a Lance Corporal in the Guards, he wears stripes on both sleeves, as opposed to the rest of the army where lance corporals wore only one set of stripes on the right sleeve.  In the Guards there is no rank of 'corporal.'  He also wears a pair of cloth wound stripes on his left sleeve.



Or this


----------



## probum non poenitet

There's a photograph I remember of the officers of a Canadian infantry battalion posing in France in 1917 or 18.

It's a formal "course photo" format taken a bit behind the lines. It may have been post-Armistice.
If you look at them, almost everyone had a wound stripe or stripes.

They don't mean much to the untrained eye, but if you know your badges, you can see what hell they went through.

Anyhow, sorry for the tangent, BBJ's photo got me thinking.


----------



## Red 6

Thanks for the intel.


----------



## Loachman

Personally, I will opt for long-standing traditions unless there is a good and valid reason for change - and I see none here.

Secondly, individual medals in a long row do not tend to stand out. Many people just note the overall number and not what each is. Wound stripes do stand out. The first one that I ever saw certainly geve me pause and made me think. They are far more distinctive.


----------



## Red 6

I can tell you when folks look at ribbon bars who know what they're looking at, the Purple Heart jumps right out there. I don't rate one, but my dad wore two, one from World War 2 and the second from Korea.


----------



## Cdnronin

I guess I'll add my two cents worth.

In reference to US or foreign medals.  Back in the early 70's a new recruit in my unit was a a Canadian who served in the US army in Viet Nam. He served two x 1 year tours. The first tour was a gunner of a Huey with the 1st AirCav. His second tour was as an MP at Danang.  He was awarded 4 air medals, CIB, Bronze Star(v), Silver Star, Purple Heart, VN service medal, volunteer medal etc.

When he joined the CF he requested he be allowed to wear his US medals. The application went through the change of command and a few months later he was allowed to wear the Bronze Star, Silver Star, Purple Heart and VN Service Medal. Everthing else was denied. He was realy upset about the CIB. As you know US army vets are very proud of the CIB. 

My opinion about a medal vs a wound stripe: I prefer the medal.  I served during the 60s and 70s and there were very few serving soldiers that had a wound stripe and they were from the Korea era.  They were discouraged from wearing them and most young soldiers knew nothing about them since they were not talked about or taught in basic training. The only soldiers who knew about a wound stripe  were older soldiers who had served in Korea or WWII.  As a matter of fact a lot people confused them with years of service stripes (similar to the stars a RCMP wears for each 5 years of service). 

Finally, a vet currently has nothing to show he was wounded when he wears his medals on Rememberance Day and I know many would like a decoration.  I particularly like the suggestion by Don Cherry - a red maple leaf on a white background.


----------



## boondocksaint

Uber- Bump to Ronin


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest, from Oral Statements in the House of Commons, 6 Oct 06
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2392284#toc1690025

Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC):  

    Mr. Speaker, recently, Corporal Bruce Moncur, one of eight current Essex-Kent Scottish in Afghanistan, became the first soldier from our region wounded in our effort against global terrorism. After two brain surgeries, the corporal's injuries have left him struggling to remember names. Corporal Moncur's name is one we will not forget for his service to our communities in Essex and to Canada.

    While saying thanks to our combat wounded is important, we can do more.

    LaSalle resident Murray Sinnott has begun a campaign to see our wounded veterans and soldiers receive an official medal. The Crimson Maple Leaf, as he calls it, would be an enamelled crimson maple leaf set against a white enamelled background, to replace the current blue-gold braid limited to the dress uniforms of those wounded in combat.

    Our Essex-Kent Scots, Canadian Forces, and veterans were all willing to spill their blood for the life and freedom of others. I call on members of this House to support the Crimson Maple Leaf medal to honour our combat wounded.

*   *   *


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

Late-comer to the thread.

I voted for "a medal".

For the nay-sayers...maybe "we" can recognize a Wound Stripe and respect it accordingly...and maybe those that EARN that stripe want it that way...but I think the stripe is not noticed by "our citizens".

A medal, however might be.  

I know I am wrong, but it's hope and thats something.  Something is better than nothing.

How many citizens know what a Mentioned in Dispatches or anything like that is?

Medals?

They get it means something.  

I think I am looking at this from the wrong angle and aware of it...so I guess I am against myself...but for the right reason.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Well, Mr. Watson should read the posts in this thread and check out the poll results before shooting his mouth off...  IMHO, of course.


----------



## geo

Teddy,
It's his opinion, everyone has or should have one & shouldn't be afraid of expressing it.

time to make room on the soapbox.

Chimo!


----------



## Infanteer

To be honest, I'm indifferent to this one, along with the "Combat Action Medal" that I've also heard rumors about.  Neither really appeals to me as I believe the capbadge on my beret covers one (being in the combat arms and all) and avoiding the other is desired.  As well, we have good, traditional systems in place to recognize both wounds (wound stripe) and tours to combat zones (Afghan bars to medals).  As well, a common rationale for the Combat Medal is so "people know" - my guess is that the "intimidation factor" is wasted on people who don't really know or care what guys on the pointy end do.

However, I do see alot of sincerity in both these proposals, and I find that laudable.  As well, I think service in combat and casualty status are certainly more worth recognizing than a plethora of other things we give medals out for -cough-Jubilee-cough-.  If the CF does decide to award these and circumstances lead me to be presented one, I would wear it proudly.  Until then, I'm going to watch and shoot.

My 2 cents,
Infanteer


----------



## eliminator

FYI

He's a pic of someone actually wearing a wound stripe....


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> To be honest, I'm indifferent to this one, along with the "Combat Action Medal" that I've also heard rumors about.



Any more info on this, Infanteer?  Is there something formal moving through inboxes at NDHQ, or is it just talk?

Personally, I think that's the one glaring omission in the Canadian honours and awards system: a distinction for those who have actively engaged with the enemy - fired upon, or come under fire.

I wrote something about the issue myself over at The Torch: http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/gongs-for-grunts.html.



> The relatively recent profusion of campaign medals on Canadian uniformed chests is a welcome change from the somewhat barren decades between Korea and the Balkans, but a campaign medal simply says the wearer was there. I don't deny that every contribution helps and deserves recognition...But much as the postal clerk deserves recognition, I don't believe he or she is due the same recognition as an infanteer kicking down doors with his heart in his mouth and his breath coming short as he clears a building room by room.
> 
> ***
> 
> ...I think we need a new award - specifically, something that recognizes CF members who have engaged directly with the enemy. This is the one time you'll find me supporting a Canadian recognition plainly based upon an American one: the Combat Action Badge. Support elements are critical to a mission, but there's a reason they're called 'support' - the pointy end is the reason they exist, not the other way around. We need to acknowledge that getting shot at and shooting back places unique stresses on an individual, and recognize that formally and visibly.



I have all the respect in the world for those in support classifications, especially those who have deployed with the pointy-end folks.  But a tour spent entirely on the base at Kandahar simply isn't the same as a tour spent out in the rocks taking fire from bad-guys.  That's not to disparage the support guys, it's just acknowledging facts.  We should recognize the distinction.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

IIRC, there's a whole thread fighting this one out:  there are very valid reasons to _oppose_ introduction of a "Combat Action Badge" - as I do.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

Thanks for the pointer, Teddy.  I hope that, since the thread you mention is closed, no one will mind my slightly off-topic remark here.

And unfortunately, you and I will have to disagree about the utility of such a distinction.


----------



## armyvern

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> I have all the respect in the world for those in support classifications, especially those who have deployed with the pointy-end folks.  But a tour spent entirely on the base at Kandahar simply isn't the same as a tour spent out in the rocks taking fire from bad-guys.  That's not to disparage the support guys, it's just acknowledging facts.  We should recognize the distinction.



Babbling Brooks, we support troops already realize this fact and have absolutely no problems acknowledging it or recognizing the pointy end does this. Why the badge? To point it out to us? We already know this as do all serving and past serving personnel. To point out the difference between you and me to the average civilian? Most of Canada's average civilians will not recognize it for what it is or what it distinguishs...and they probably won't be running around trying to find out. So is it really necessary?

Those who need to know what the pointy end does... already do. And we truly do our absolute best to support you to our fullest capability on a daily basis trying to make sure the kit, vehicles, weapons, ammo etc we provide you with and fix for you keeps you safe and allows you to make it back inside the wire with your buddies and get home to your families. You have my respect, honestly.


----------



## McG

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> IIRC, there's a whole thread fighting this one out:  there are very valid reasons to _oppose_ introduction of a "Combat Action Badge" - as I do.


Well, we can't give out CPSM for Afghanistan so clearly we need something else to make it a two medal tour.   :   ;D



			
				Red 6 said:
			
		

> I can tell you when folks look at ribbon bars who know what they're looking at, the Purple Heart jumps right out there. I don't rate one, but my dad wore two, one from World War 2 and the second from Korea.


Since we do not issue the same medal twice, Canadian soldiers would only wear a number 2 or some other designator on the ribbon.  However, multiple wound stripes can be worn if wounded multiple times.


----------



## boondocksaint

Armyvern said:
			
		

> Why the badge?



Then ask 'why any badge?', why bother with any singular mode of recognition? An arguement for and against every method of recognition could be made. I imagine at the introduction of every medal/award there was upheavel, debate raging about why or why not this particular medal was needed.

I'll ask 'why not?'

Exclusivity? Honestly, there are so many forms of 'exclusivity' in the CF that we take for granted as the norm it doesnt hold water. Will it create another form of exclusivity? Absolutely, I just dont see it as being detrimental. I am of course biased, but then we all are.

_To point it out to us?_ That's not it either, although I can't see where there would be an adverse effect of displaying to other members or to civilians that someone has 'closed with and destroyed'.

In the talks we've had at work about this subject, it has little to do with ego.( believe it or not ) It's more of a personal issue about experiences shared under extreme conditions. Namely combat.

Every single one of us prior to fighting wondered, 'will I do my part?' 'will I fight hard or hide like a coward?' 'will I piss myself from fright and freeze up when the bullets start flying?' Every infantry soldier has had these thoughts and emotions, conquering them in combat is as important to us as conquering the enemy. As big and scary and smelly as we are in the Infantry, I believe that it's important to reinforce that those experiences were anything but normal, but that we needed to do them, and we did the best we could.

Does it hurt anyone by awarding this medal? I havent found any experiences from the American side to indicate it's detrimental to their military. Traditions are always being molded and updated in one way or another, for one reason or another. Be it the wound stripe, CIB or any other medal/decoration.

Applying flame retardent clothes now...


----------



## silentbutdeadly

+1 buddy!


----------



## armyvern

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> Applying flame retardent clothes now...


Interesting comment above. I actually have no problem with the awarding of this medal/badge etc. I only asked if it was really a requirement for other than "distinguishing" reasons. You have laid out your reasoning for it very eloquently. 

I still think it has it's drawbacks. I just think that to the civilian populace it will mean nothing.

To us already in the CF, your cap badge distinguishes you from me. A badge/or medal will also distinguish you more from me. 

But, it will also distinguish you from your comrades who have not actually closed with and destroyed the enemy. This is where I have concerns. Does your fellow soldier who has not yet had the 'opportunity' (really I don't know how else to put it) to close with and destroy the enemy need to be distinguished from those of you that have? Is he any less of a soldier because he has not yet done this? Is he any less distinguished in his honourable intentions in voluntarily taking up arms on behalf of his country and like yourself, worrying and wondering how he will react and perform when this opportunity comes? I'd say no. I'd say that I have faith in our training system, faith in our soldiers, and most importantly faith in the bravery and courage of all our troops employed at the head of the dragon.

I am already visibly different from you by virtue of the cap badge. I hope that if a combat badge/medal is brought into effect that those of you who have earned them will not treat your fellow infanteer without one as any lesser individual or member of the team that's all.

Bye the way, As big and scary and smelly as you are in the infantry...you're not that bad, after all I'm married to one of you.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Vern,

Then by your argument, get rid of the rating system on courses.  The merit list for promotion. In fact the whole numbering system of Company, Platoons and Sections.  

That is sounding way too politically correct now.  Part of the reasoning of medals and awards, it to have all people strive to be the best.  Ans when they do be recognized.  If someone is wounded doing his job, then let him show that recognition in the same way we recognize the one beside him who fell.

Those are the two that are the same, the one who fell in combat, and the injured that survived. So if the troop who has the training happens to be in the same section as one of the wounded chaps, sees a wounded stripe or medal, he can be rest assured that he is in good hands, and will learn more.

dileas

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Since boondocksaint eloquently presented his argument for a "combat action" badge, I'll present my counter argument.


It's devisive.  As I've said before, we already have far too much "us and them", "BTDT vs numpty", without adding to it.  A CAB indicates in bold, shiny letters, that the CF values one type of service more than others.  You might argue that it should - I'd argue that we can't afford to.
The criteria are almost impossible to define and enforce.  This is the problem the Americans have with the CIB.  Who gets it?  The kneejerk answer is to give the badge to someone who "engages the enemy".  Well, how do you define that?  The guy kicking in doors in a section is one thing.  What about his OC, who may not fire a round in anger?  What about the FAC?  What about the tanker, sitting sipping coffee 1000m away, lobbing HESH at the enemy?  What about the trucker, defending his/her convoy against an ambush?  Does firing your weapon meet the criteria?  How do you enforce that?  We could easily have a scenario (already present with tour medals) of people trying to get into the action just to get a badge.
What impact would a CAB have on career progression?  Will you need one to be promoted?  What if you don't have one and your soldiers do?  Where's your credibility?  This is the same reason we got rid of the stupid graduated "Warrior" badges years ago.
Is this an infantry thing?  If so, your cap badge and tour medals should suffice.  To this day, if I see someone from 3 PP wearing the SWASM, I know he was on APOLLO.  If not, where are you drawing the line?  After all, the very distinction you wish to make would soon be lost.  The Australians merely require that the infantry _be present_ in a combat zone to earn a badge; is that enough?  Sorta defeats the purpose.
Define "combat".  Is it retroactive?  Do the guys from OP HARMONY, OP CAVALIER qualify?

Germaine to the original topic (and this is a very personal thing), I'm getting tired of seeing all the bright ideas stemming from the US.  I can virtually guarantee that this conversation isn't happening in the UK.  We've had suggestions for battle streamers, a Canadian Purple Heart, a "combat action" badge, and even a (serious) recommendation that we change the pronouciation of Lieutenant to "lootenent" - all originating from an extremely pervasive US influence.  I'll go back to my old line:  we have valid traditions that have functioned extremely well through two World Wars, Korea and a host of other operations.  Why change it, simply because we've seen "Purple Hearts" too often on TV and regard what we do as meaningless as a result?

All IMHO, of course.


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> Then by your argument, get rid of the rating system on courses.  The merit list for promotion. In fact the whole numbering system of Company, Platoons and Sections.
> 
> That is sounding way too politically correct now.  Part of the reasoning of medals and awards, it to have all people strive to be the best.  Ans when they do be recognized.  If someone is wounded doing his job, then let him show that recognition in the same way we recognize the one beside him who fell.
> 
> Those are the two that are the same, the one who fell in combat, and the injured that survived. So if the troop who has the training happens to be in the same section as one of the wounded chaps, sees a wounded stripe or medal, he can be rest assured that he is in good hands, and will learn more.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Tess,

My post is in reference to the Combat Action Badge/Medal that is now being discussed in this thread *not* wound recognition.

Me??? Politiclly correct??? Note the date of this historic occasion on your calandar.  ;D

Dileas 

Vern


----------



## the 48th regulator

I was trying to goad you into sending me that PM I asked about a while back.... 

Now that would have been totally Politically incorrect, yet would make me happy.  Consider it a way of recognizing me!  

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I was trying to goad you into sending me that PM I asked about a while back....



PM sent  >


----------



## the 48th regulator

Sweet heart of Jeebus  

Alright,

I got my award....

dileas

tess


----------



## boondocksaint

As always Teddy, well stated, I can now carry on watching 'tank week' on history channel without waiting to check for your retort during commercials.  

Im sure folks with a higher pay grade then mine ( mostly everyone ) will determine this outcome, either way the different points of view here have been interesting. Hopefully this kind of  'collection of opinion' is given some thought by those folks determining the outcome.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Tanks much...heh...   ;D

Cheers,


----------



## McG

Teddy, 
+1



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> A CAB indicates in bold, shiny letters, that the CF values one type of service more than others.


Doesn't the CPSM already do this for a type of service that (I think most of us would agree) should not be seen as more valued?  I suppose the GCS could have been the CPSM of combat ops, but instead it is in lieu of a mission specific medal.

but, I'm just thinking out loud.  I don't like the CPSM and I would rather not create its warfighter equivalent (though both medals would of equal relevance).  I don't think there is a need that it always be a two medal tour the first time a soldier goes to war or on a PSO.

I also realize that in a CAB, we are not talking about a medal, but (like I said) I'm just thinking out loud.


----------



## tlg

I personally think that having a wound stripe is more valuable to a medal because from what I've recently learned you can CHOOSE to wear the wound stripe but you're FORCED to wear the medal. Some soldiers might not want it known that they were wounded for reasons known only to themselves and other might think that they haven't earned the right to wear one. Whatever the case may be I think the current system is better(er) than what the yanks have in place.


----------



## Journeyman

tlg said:
			
		

> *...but you're FORCED to wear the medal.*



Not really. I have a set of ribbons that just include Cyprus, Bosnia, & Kosovo, because they are the ones important to me. When I got my CD (after 15 years  > ), it was just thrown in my mail slot; I guess I value that as much as my supervisor did. I think the CPSM is _complete_ BS. And I got the Golden Jube.  : 

I have not yet been wrestled to the ground by an RSM or Adjutant, been put in a headlock, and forced to wear the gongs I don't particularly value.

....and I've already stated my preference for retaining the wound stripe.


----------



## geo

(journeyman - many, many people did same to Jubilee medal - including some RSMs)

With respect to their presenting you your CD in a mail box........... FOR SHAME!!! NO CLASS, NO DARNED CLASS!!!!


----------



## MG34

FWIW I say keep the wound stripe,I wear mine with pride (although it took them 4 yrs to get it to me wounded '92,got the stripe in '96). A medal, although shiney and all has no tradition in the Canadian military.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Last week during the CDS's town hall in Ottawa he said that the CF was looking into creating a "scarifice medal" to replace the wound strip.  This medal apparently would be granted to CF members wounded in action against the enemy in a similar fashon to the US Purple Heart.

The CDS said that the name "Sacrifice" medal was merely a placeholder for now but he seemed resolved to see this award come to fruition.

My question is do the members of this forum agree with the idea or would you prefer to keep our current tradition of the wound stripe to acknowledge injuries suffered on the battlefield.


----------



## Reccesoldier

I personally prefer the wound stripe both because it is our tradition in the CF and because not all soldiers want to demonstrate or even to talk about being wounded.  The wound stripe is a badge and as such it can be worn or not as the soldier wishes.  A medal is presented by the Queen for all intents and purposes and MUST be worn once awarded.

There is also the question of PTSD, and the intent from what I am led to understand is to acknowledge the reality that this is a wound just as much as loosing a limb.  This brings the soldiers question of privacy and also of being forced in a way to remember his/her "wound" every time he/she dons his/her medals.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Not really. I have a set of ribbons that just include Cyprus, Bosnia, & Kosovo, because they are the ones important to me. When I got my CD (after 15 years  > ), it was just thrown in my mail slot; I guess I value that as much as my supervisor did. I think the CPSM is _complete_ BS. And I got the Golden Jube.  :
> 
> I have not yet been wrestled to the ground by an RSM or Adjutant, been put in a headlock, and forced to wear the gongs I don't particularly value.
> 
> ....and I've already stated my preference for retaining the wound stripe.



Journeyman, you have the right to request your CD be presented to you.  

The fact that you received it in your mail slot should have been addressed through your chain of command ASAP.  I dare say there are more than enough people of rank within any organization that would have made sure you received the recognition and honour you deserved.  Conversely I'm also sure your supervisor would have received the _recognition_ he deserved as well.  :rage:

If you need or want any help with this please do not hesitate to contact me personally

WO Martin Gasser
Directorate of Hounours and Awards
Medals Distribution Supervisor
Gasser.MA2@forces.gc.ca
(613) 998-5335
CSN 854-5335



> Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them.
> Aristotle


----------



## Journeyman

Thanks...but as mentioned, my tour ribbons (and my various jump/dive boyscout badges) are what I particularly value. 

Life is way too short - - you've got to pick the issues to get worked up over.  ;D


----------



## the 48th regulator

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I personally prefer the wound stripe both because it is our tradition in the CF and because not all soldiers want to demonstrate or even to talk about being wounded.  The wound stripe is a badge and as such it can be worn or not as the soldier wishes.  A medal is presented by the Queen for all intents and purposes and MUST be worn once awarded.
> 
> There is also the question of PTSD, and the intent from what I am led to understand is to acknowledge the reality that this is a wound just as much as loosing a limb.  This brings the soldiers question of privacy and also of being forced in a way to remember his/her "wound" every time he/she dons his/her medals.



Very well stated Recce.

I, however, discuss my wounds with pride.  As I have over time acknowlegded that I must not feel shame, for having done my duty.  Yet, as some heal mentally, you are right in saying that it can open up thos wounds remembering.

dileas

tess


----------



## geo

Reccesoldier,
I think the subject has been pretty much proded and pushed around in this thread.

The main thing about a "gong" is that it will be worn, along with your other gongs, while you are in the CF AND can be worn afterwards, once you have retired.  There is no provision for a civy version of the wound stripe... the gong would resolve the preceived "problem".  

However, 

does the fella who got his "blighty" merit more attention than his fellow section members who managed to make it thru his mission without getting hit?


----------



## Servicepub

Ironic that a Canadian soldier should get to wear a medal because the enemy managed to inflict a wound - perhaps we can reciprocate and send the enemy soldier a medal too. Maybe we can become like the US and establish a Purple Heart Association were membership is decided by your misfortune in not ducking in time.

I support the idea of the wound stripe primarily for its historical significance. That said, it should be pointed out that wound stripes are not forever. My father-in-law earned a Mention in Despatch and a wound stripe on the same patrol in Korea, in 1952. By 1964 wound stripes were no longer authorised for wear.  By the time wound stripes were back in vogue he had retired.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> "There is no provision for a civy version of the wound stripe.."



Not so, Geo: http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/0303_admhrmil_e.asp

Note item 9: _Personnel, who by reason of their service have become entitled to wear a wound stripe, may, at their own option, continue to wear them on civilian clothes after cessation of military service._

Apparently they come in strips of five - enough to keep one for a civilian jacket if the wounded member so wishes.

Updated: And while this goes back a few months, Michael O'Leary said "Why not a device worn on the medal ribbon of the applicable operation? The old "Mentioned in Despatches" oak leaf emblem was worn in such a manner..."  Just to be clear, the current MID does the same, although if it's awarded for actions not associated with a particular medal or ribbon, it can be worn directly on the tunic: http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/mentioning-mentions.html


----------



## RHFC_piper

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> Note item 9: _Personnel, who by reason of their service have become entitled to wear a wound stripe, may, at their own option, continue to wear them on civilian clothes after cessation of military service._
> 
> Apparently they come in strips of five - enough to keep one for a civilian jacket if the wounded member so wishes.



I only recieved one and a few of the guys wounded with me haven't even recieved theirs yet.  But, with that in mind, does this mean we are entitled to a set of five? or is that just how many come in an order?

Also, with all this 'wound stripe' talk; some of us wounded in Afghanistan are Reservists in silly-hat-and-dress (Highland) regiments, and thusly wear uniforms where the current issue stripe does not.. um.. work well... uh.. fit... It looks silly.  Kind of like having it on Scarlets.  Anyway, the way my regiment wants to deal with it is using the old style gold braid, or Brass bar.  I think it's a little more distinguishing.  I'm thinking this may cause some issues with CF dress regs.



			
				Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> Updated: And while this goes back a few months, Michael O'Leary said "Why not a device worn on the medal ribbon of the applicable operation? The old "Mentioned in Despatches" oak leaf emblem was worn in such a manner..."  Just to be clear, the current MID does the same, although if it's awarded for actions not associated with a particular medal or ribbon, it can be worn directly on the tunic: http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/mentioning-mentions.html



Does this mean those who were wounded in Afghanistan will be recieving an Oak Leaf (MID) on their GCS?  I've been told (By my home units BOR, as they held paperwork for my medals) that this roto (3-06) will be recieving both the GCS and the SWASM; which medal would the MID be worn on?  Also, are soldiers wounded in Friendly fire eligible for a MID or is it just for soldiers wounded in Combat?

I know thats a whole lot of questions, but it's just something I'd like to know.


Oh yeah, before I forget...  I was told by a very reliable source (who will remain nameless) that the wound medal has been approved.  Has anyone else heard anything 'official' on the matter?


----------



## armyvern

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, before I forget...  I was told by a very reliable source (who will remain nameless) that the wound medal has been approved.  Has anyone else heard anything 'official' on the matter?



Most certainly, _if and when _ this becomes official, as it falls under "Honours & Awards" a CANFORGEN will undoubtedly be released.


----------



## George Wallace

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, before I forget...  I was told by a very reliable source (who will remain nameless) that the wound medal has been approved.  Has anyone else heard anything 'official' on the matter?



Great!

As Reccesoldier works in that department at DHH, perhaps he will confirm or deny your reliable source's rumour.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> Does this mean those who were wounded in Afghanistan will be recieving an Oak Leaf (MID) on their GCS?



Sorry for the confusion - it's an entirely separate issue.  The MID is only worn by those awarded the honour, not by all wounded personnel.

As far as the strip of five is concerned, I learned that from this site: http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Wound_Stripes.  The writer quotes as follows:



> CF DRESS MANUAL A-AD-265-000/AG-001, SECTION 5, PARA 1 AND Fig. 3-5-1.
> 
> 7. Wound stripes come in strips of 5 and are cut as needed. There are four (4) variations:
> 
> 1. DEU Dress Navy – gold on black melton.
> 2. Air Force – gold on blue/gray melton.
> 3. Army – new gold on dark green melton
> 4. Garrison Dress, Army – old gold on green (has an embroidered border around each stripe with a half size strip of material between each making it longer.



That might not be up-to-date.


----------



## RHFC_piper

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> Sorry for the confusion - it's an entirely separate issue.  The MID is only worn by those awarded the honour, not by all wounded personnel.



Ah... Seen. Thanks.  Not that I need any more hoobajoobs on my uniform, just thought it'd be.. well.. neat.



			
				Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> As far as the strip of five is concerned, I learned that from this site: http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Wound_Stripes.  The writer quotes as follows:
> 
> That might not be up-to-date.



Either way, I'm sure I'll get them as I need them.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> As Reccesoldier works in that department at DHH, perhaps he will confirm or deny your reliable source's rumour.



Again, not too worried about it, just interested in where this is all going.  

(btw. The reliable source is a relay from the CDS through a fellow wounded soldier.)


----------



## armyvern

I learned a long time ago that nothing is official and is always subject to change and/or cancellation until the "official" announcement is made by the appropriate authority and the detailing message is cut.


----------



## geo

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> Not so, Geo: http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/0303_admhrmil_e.asp
> 
> Note item 9: _Personnel, who by reason of their service have become entitled to wear a wound stripe, may, at their own option, continue to wear them on civilian clothes after cessation of military service._



Yes, I know you can sew a wound stripe on your mufti jacket....
but, to the unknowing public, it means absolutely nothing.  In uniform, surrounded by other serving members, a wound stripe means something.  In civy land, a hash bar on your suit's sleve means absolutely nothing.

People in the US see a purple heart and they know exactly what it means.... 
not something that means anything up here.... if someone up here is interested in letting members of the public know he got his blighty on a mission, the would stripe doesn't cut it.


----------



## RHFC_piper

The Librarian said:
			
		

> I learned a long time ago that nothing is official and is always subject to change and/or cancellation until the "official" announcement is made by the appropriate authority and the detailing message is cut.



I agree... Just looking for insight from those who are in the know.  

If that weren't available here, these entire forums would be pointless and would just be another military oriented site with information posted instead of the discussion boards that they are.  90% of these forums are speculation until official releases, thus the discussion, if it weren't so, then this very thread would consist of one post outlining the idea until the official press release.

With that said, thanks for the info... kinda...  and if anyone who is in the know, or has access to the DIN (as I don't at home, and probably wont be back to work until my holes close... in a month or so) hears anything about said medal or otherwise, feel free to let me know via PM.  

I, for one, am for the wound stripe, but if some one is going to give me a medal I'm not going to turn it down.  At least I'll have something else to remember my first and last tour.


----------



## armyvern

No this post would still consist of a poll asking what people's opinions were on this idea, that is the topic after all.  

You're welcome!!  ;D


----------



## geo

Piper,
Per discussion papers coming outa the big puzzle palace, there is a desire to have a Cdn equivalent of the Purple Heart.... what it will look like and what kind of time line we're talking about, I haven't got a clue but FWIW, something will be coming down the pipe.....


----------



## the 48th regulator

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I only recieved one and a few of the guys wounded with me haven't even recieved theirs yet.  But, with that in mind, does this mean we are entitled to a set of five? or is that just how many come in an order?
> 
> Also, with all this 'wound stripe' talk; some of us wounded in Afghanistan are Reservists in silly-hat-and-dress (Highland) regiments, and thusly wear uniforms where the current issue stripe does not.. um.. work well... uh.. fit... It looks silly.  Kind of like having it on Scarlets.  Anyway, the way my regiment wants to deal with it is using the old style gold braid, or Brass bar.  I think it's a little more distinguishing.  I'm thinking this may cause some issues with CF dress regs.



Set of five, heck I got a stack of them given to me, can for the life of me find where I put 'em.

As for th silly hat thing, it looked actually very good, it was made for it.  Don't bother looking for the brass metal one.

You will be good to go.

dileas

tess


----------



## PhilB

The medal is tied into when you got into theater and when you got of theater. The op switched from Op Archer to Athena, that is out from under "control" of the Americans (OEF) on 1-Aug-06. If you were in theater for a period of 30 days before this switch then you are entitled to the SWASM, if not then no. From 1-Aug-06 on mbrs were entitled to the GCS after having served a period of 30+days in theater. I know a lot of us on later chalks of Roto 1 missed out by a few days for the GCS, not that it really matters, I personally would not want a gimme medal for getting the minimum time in. I know pers that were on 9 month tours (Sigs, etc) that got back in Nov ish got both. Hope this helps.


----------



## geo

Uhhh..... PhilB - I think we're talking about wether or not Canada will get it's equivalent to the Purple Heart - not wether or not you qualify for a GCS or SWASM.

Soldiers wounded while in theatre are automatically entitled to their service/campaign gong.


----------



## PhilB

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I've been told (By my home units BOR, as they held paperwork for my medals) that this roto (3-06) will be recieving both the GCS and the SWASM; which medal would the MID be worn on?



Roger that Geo, I suppose I was slightly off, I was just trying to answer a portion or piper's question. Please carry on, sorry for the intrusion


----------



## geo

PhilB,
Was not an intrusion.  All comments are welcome.
Possibly you should have indicated it as being a sidenote - or even a temp topic hijack.
(but, without having reviewed all 9 pages of this thread, am certain that this point was addressed with the Piper)


----------



## Reccesoldier

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Great!
> 
> As Reccesoldier works in that department at DHH, perhaps he will confirm or deny your reliable source's rumour.



The only person who can approve a medal's creation is the Queen through the GG and on the advice of the Government and all that nause.  

As much as the CDS wants to get this going HRH hurries for no one. ;D

I would say though if you don't agree with the premise or purpose of this not-as-of-yet approved medal contact your MP.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

As I have said earlier on the thread I like the tradition of the wound stripe, the issue of not having recognition once you are out of uniform is an issue for those of us who have been WIA. The solution is a lapel pin or badge like back in the great wars that reads WIA. Would this not keep with our traditions and solve the issue of recognition? IMHO the solution is right under our noses in our past traditions.

The big issue that has not been discussed yet on new medals is the Prisoner of War medal. Maybe the media should go off on that and leave the Wound Stripe alone.


----------



## George Wallace

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> As I have said earlier on the thread I like the tradition of the wound stripe, the issue of not having recognition once you are out of uniform is an issue for those of us who have been WIA. The solution is a lapel pin or badge like back in the great wars that reads WIA. Would this not keep with our traditions and solve the issue of recognition? IMHO the solution is right under our noses in our past traditions.
> 
> The big issue that has not been discussed yet on new medals is the Prisoner of War medal. Maybe the media should go off on that and leave the Wound Stripe alone.



Are you advocating that we put some senior officer, and his staff in the Puzzle Palace, out of work?  What would they do, if they couldn't come up with some new ridiculous means to recreate the wheel?


----------



## 3rd Horseman

:rofl:.........+1 George


----------



## RHFC_piper

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Can't vote for both???
> 
> 
> 
> *runs away*    ;D



Meh, I think I'm just going to get a shirt made that says "I got shot in Afghanistan"... that should do me for civies, and I think the wound stripe will do for uniform.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> The big issue that has not been discussed yet on new medals is the Prisoner of War medal. Maybe the media should go off on that and leave the Wound Stripe alone.



I don't think this is high on the list at the moment. Very simply, if you become a POW in this war, you're likely not going to be around to get presented your medal.


----------



## RHFC_piper

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> The big issue that has not been discussed yet on new medals is the Prisoner of War medal. Maybe the media should go off on that and leave the Wound Stripe alone.



If someone is going to gripe about a medal for those of us who 'forgot to duck' then what will come of a medal for those who 'got caught'?  :



			
				Servicepub said:
			
		

> Ironic that a Canadian soldier should get to wear a medal because the enemy managed to inflict a wound - perhaps we can reciprocate and send the enemy soldier a medal too. Maybe we can become like the US and establish a Purple Heart Association were membership is decided by your misfortune in not ducking in time.



Some how, I find this insulting.

But hey, since thats the way people feel, why not give the enemy medals for capturing our guys too.


Maybe wound stripes just show the 'dummys' who didn't duck (I won't go into how this is wrong), and maybe wound medals are 'too American'...   So I suppose a POW medal would be just as bad.   Why call attention to any kind of sacrifice unless it ends up in a act of valour, right?  :

Well... whatever...  I'm proud of what I've done, even if I was too dumb to duck an attack by friendly forces on our safe position right after we woke up in the morning.  Maybe the A-10 pilot should get a 'Crimson Maple leaf' or a 'good shot, wrong target' medal.


----------



## aesop081

Obviously an issue that is getting emotional but please lets keep it clean.....


----------



## geo

Piper,
I understand ya & pert much see where you are coming from.

For me, I would think that a device on the campaign/service medal the individual receives would be something appropriate.

BTW, how is the wound healing? Physio started yet?

Keep the faith

CHIMO!


----------



## GUNS

IMHO- anyone who serves in any operation should be entitled to a medal.

If you are inside or outside the wire, you get the same medal.

If you are wounded or not wounded, you get the same medal.

Is the soldier who spends his/her complete tour in the field less of a soldier than someone who was wounded half way through his/her tour.

The satisfaction of doing the right thing for a country in need should be enough.

Medals are awarded for doing an outstanding job in less than ideal conditions and should not be used as bragging rights.

I for one would not want anything that would tell others that I was wounded. If you wish not to be reminded about your injury on a daily bases, why advertise.


----------



## geo

Guns,
Everyone who goes to Afghanistan as part of the mission is entitled to his Gong - a campaign medal of sorts, regardless of IN or OUT of the wire.  Those who are wounded while in theatre are entitled to their Gong - regardless of how many days/weeks/month in theatre.  These are not medals for valour, courage, determination, etc - campaign medals are "been there, done that" Gongs.

There are "combat infantryman" type badges coming down the pipe for different levels of involvment in the country`s mission of dealing with the badguys.  Here there will be 3 classes - some agree - others don`t.

WRT bound stripes or medals..... that`s what this thread is all about.  Some agree with ya, some don`t.


----------



## ModlrMike

geo said:
			
		

> There are "combat infantryman" type badges coming down the pipe for different levels of involvment in the country`s mission of dealing with the badguys.  Here there will be 3 classes - some agree - others don`t.



Which of course begs the question "What is combat in asymmetric warfare?"  Do we define it as a "conventional" engagement such as direct contact? If you're a supporter and your convoy gets bombed, does that count as combat? If, as in my case, some clown blows himself up on the hood of your LUVW, is that combat? I personally hold the opinion that all three of these are examples of combat, and no one more or less deserving than the other. If we are going to award combat badges, it will be interesting to see where the definition settles out, but I'm veering off topic. For the record, I agree that we should stay with the wound stripe vice moving to a Canadian purple heart type medal.


----------



## geo

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Which of course begs the question "What is combat in asymmetric warfare?"  Do we define it as a "conventional" engagement such as direct contact? If you're a supporter and your convoy gets bombed, does that count as combat? If, as in my case, some clown blows himself up on the hood of your LUVW, is that combat? I personally hold the opinion that all three of these are examples of combat, and no one more or less deserving than the other. If we are going to award combat badges, it will be interesting to see where the definition settles out, but I'm veering off topic. For the record, I agree that we should stay with the wound stripe vice moving to a Canadian purple heart type medal.



The three levels of the Combat badge will cover the particular level of involvment
- them shooting at you & your shooting back
- them shooting / bombing at you 
- them throwing missiles in your direction 

There is another thread on this subject - please do a search and do your homework as this has already been discussed....

WRT the Stripe VS a gong, the point is that, once out of the service, no one will wear the stripe - though they are entitled to.  Creating a medal that would ride next to your campaign star / medal or possibly a clasp to go onto the medal's ribbon could be ways for our serving and former members to show their blighty - should they care to show it.


----------



## the 48th regulator

geo said:
			
		

> WRT the Stripe VS a gong, the point is that, once out of the service, no one will wear the stripe - though they are entitled to.  Creating a medal that would ride next to your campaign star / medal or possibly a clasp to go onto the medal's ribbon could be ways for our serving and former members to show their blighty - should they care to show it.



Very Good point.

I myself am proud my service, and I would be proud to wear the medal with my others.  To me it reminds me of the ultimate sacrifice I came close to giving to my country.  It would also serve as a reminder to others, when they ask me what the medal was for, that there are many who have shed their blood  for our country.  

There is no slight, whatsoever on those that were there and made it unscathed.  We remember the fallen, and those have served, why is it we are so ashamed or shy to honour those that did not have to give up their lives, yet left something physically, if not mentally, behind?

The wounds stripe, once out, really would not get worn, I don't wear mine, as it is unpractical.  A medal I would be able to pin on my chest.

dileas

tess


----------



## Badanai

Interesting Threat....I remember seeing some guys in the RCR get presented their wound strip as a award of honour and a plaque I received mine VIA a military message stating get your ass to the clothing stores and get the Tailor to attach one on your uniform. At the time I didn't know what the wound strip was. As I later found out I wasn't the only one. 
One parade I was on with 1 RCR the reviewing office didn't know what it was either and asked was I in the band. The CSM gave the officer a nice little push and told him to keep walking LOL I guess you had to be there. Its nice to see our soldiers are getting more respect these days from our fellow countrymen and women even from our own Government.


----------



## GUNS

Medals are not my issue. If you deserve one, you get one.

I have a problem with having a soldiers wear anything that would indicate that he/she was wounded.

Maybe a certain soldier is having emotional issues about being wounded and serving in a combat.

Wearing a wound strip or whatever, is not the way to help lessen the soldiers emotional problems.

If a wound strip or medal is issues it should be a optional dress requirement.


----------



## George Wallace

.....along with a "Handicap" card or plate for their car.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> Maybe a certain soldier is having emotional issues about being wounded and serving in a combat.
> 
> Wearing a wound strip or whatever, is not the way to help lessen the soldiers emotional problems.
> 
> If a wound strip or medal is issues it should be a optional dress requirement.



Then get them the treatment they need, right away, so that he may be able to cope with those issues.  A medal, certainly will not exacerbate the mental anguish, if anything it reminds them how alive they really are.

There are alot of other factors that will make things worse, and that is the lack of acknowledgement and treatment.

dileas

tess


----------



## Trinity

I have to admit... tess' posts are making me think a bit.

Not everyone wants to wear a medal for being injured, especially
if they simply forgot to duck as one member has said to me.

So, similar to other members talking about not wearing their Jubilee, make
this medal optional to wear (reference from different thread)  That way those who want 
to wear it can, those who feel its weak won't, those who don't want to disclose
their wounds or psychological injury can keep it to themselves.


+1 to tess on wearing the wound stripe after one retires.  More difficult
especially if you change jackets    than a mounted medal


----------



## Badanai

Careful were you going with that... Tess making people think LOL Just kidding Bro


----------



## the 48th regulator

My point is that one should feel pride in everything that we do, as long as you were doing your job.

Stating that one feels hurt, embarrassed by receiving a medal for being wounded is horse puckey.

I was proud of my stripe, and would be proud to wear a medal, again it reminds me I was doing my job, was willing to risk my neck, and made it out alive.

It shows my training worked, and the training of those who were around me worked, right on up to the medical staff.  

Mental anguish is a cause, but as I have ranted before, get us the help we need, not assume what will hurt us.

dileas

tess


----------



## Badanai

I agree 100% Brother


----------



## geo

GUNS said:
			
		

> Medals are not my issue. If you deserve one, you get one.
> 
> I have a problem with having a soldiers wear anything that would indicate that he/she was wounded.
> 
> Maybe a certain soldier is having emotional issues about being wounded and serving in a combat.
> 
> Wearing a wound strip or whatever, is not the way to help lessen the soldiers emotional problems.
> 
> If a wound strip or medal is issues it should be a optional dress requirement.



It is.
Members are given a supply of them.
They are not forced to have them put on


----------



## the 48th regulator

geo said:
			
		

> It is.
> Members are given a supply of them.
> They are not forced to have them put on



So let me get this straight.  The wearing of issued items such as medals, decorations, or items of recognition are now optional?

Can anyone give me an official link on this policy?

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/0303_admhrmil_e.asp

ADM (HR-MIL) INSTRUCTION 03/03
AWARDING AND RECORDING OF WOUND STRIPES



> INTRODUCTION
> 
> 1. Following the precedent set in the First and Second World Wars, the Canadian Forces (CF) award 'wound stripes' to battlefield casualties, a dress distinction that recognizes a physical or mental injury received as a result of armed conflict. One narrow gold braid stripe will be worn in respect of each occasion an individual is wounded - but NOT for each separate injury.
> 
> 2. This distinction is not to be regarded in the nature of a reward.
> 
> POLICY AND PROCEDURES
> 
> 3. Eligibility: All ranks of the CF, along with members of foreign military forces on exchange duties with the CF, as well as Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency and contract employees, will be eligible for this distinction.
> 
> 4. A wound stripe recognizes injury directly attributable to hostile action received in honourable circumstances in an operational area, and requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid. Individuals who are injured in accidents in a special duty area or while employed on domestic provision of service operations or training exercises do not qualify for a wound stripe. Wound stripes are not issued posthumously.
> 
> 5. Awarding Authority: The authority to wear a wound stripe is granted by the casualty's unit Commanding Officer (CO). The CO shall verify eligibility, referring doubtful cases directly, by message, to National Defence Headquarters, attention: Director Casualty Support and Administration (NDHQ/DCSA).
> 
> 6. Claims and Entitlements:  All CF members who consider that they are entitled to a wound stripe may initiate a claim to their CO. Paragraph 10 of this instruction outlines a list of wounds or injuries that would qualify personnel for an entitlement to a wound stripe.
> 
> 7. Promulgation and Recording: The award of a wound stripe will be published in unit routine orders. The CO will ensure that the circumstances of the award are recorded on the individual's personal file and personal record resume. The CO will also notify the individual's career manager of the award, by message. Instructions on how this procedure is to be conducted are contained in A-PM-245-001/FP-001 'Military Human Resources Records Procedures', Chapter 10 (Unit Personnel Records).
> 
> 8. Presentation: On verification of eligibility, and as soon as practicable after the injury has been incurred, the casualty's CO, or representative, will formally present the wound stripe to the member. Based on the discretion of the member, the presentation may be done in public or in private. A DND 5266 (01-03) 'Certificate of the Award of Wound Stripe' will also be awarded and given to the individual. The NATO Stock Number (NSN) for the Wound Stripe Certificate is 7530-20-000-6922. Visit http://diso-s041.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/DFC2/ to download the certificate.
> 
> 9. *Display: Wound stripes will be worn on CF uniforms in accordance with A-AD-265-000/AG-001 'Canadian Forces Dress Instructions'. Personnel, who by reason of their service have become entitled to wear a wound stripe, may, at their own option, continue to wear them on civilian clothes after cessation of military service.*
> 
> 10. Qualification for Wound Stripes: Wounds or injuries requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid (i.e., treatment at a medical facility of more than 5 days duration, not necessarily consecutive) that are due to hostile actions and would be a qualification for a wound stripe include, but are not limited to:
> 
> a. Injuries due to blast;
> 
> b. Injuries due to rescue work in bombed buildings or defences;
> 
> c. Injuries due to collision of a vessel or a vehicle with a mine;
> 
> d. Injuries sustained by aircrew or passengers as a result of an aircraft crash, or aircraft damage, or fire in an aircraft, provided that these are due to hostile actions or take place during an operational sortie. Injuries sustained by eligible personnel who rescue, or attempt to rescue, aircrew and passengers in such circumstances would qualify for the wound stripe;
> 
> e. Injuries due to mine or bomb disposal duties;
> 
> f. Injuries due to terrorist attack (attempted assassinations, car bombs, etc) by hostile forces when Canadian military forces are the targets. Incidents such as these do not necessarily need to take place in an operational area;
> 
> g. Wounds or injuries inflicted by our own, allied or coalition forces' projectiles (or parts of them) when these have been fired at real or perceived hostile forces;
> 
> h. Injuries that require not less than one week's treatment in hospital (or equivalent) as a consequence of:
> 
> i. exposure at sea in open boats and life rafts directly due to hostile action;
> 
> ii. exposure in the air following attacks on aircraft by hostile forces;
> 
> iii. inadequate or harsh treatment by hostile forces as a result of being captured or detained; or
> 
> iv. the employment of nuclear, biological or chemical agents by hostile forces.
> 
> i. Operational stress injuries may qualify for a wound stripe if treatment of not less than one week in hospital (or equivalent) is the direct result of a traumatic incident caused by hostile forces in a combat zone.
> 
> 11. Injuries, although not directly due to hostile force actions, if sustained in the combat zone by personnel in direct contact with a hostile force, would also qualify for a wound stripe. For example, injuries sustained as a result of a vehicle accident directly attributable to terrain that needed to be followed due to the tactical situation would qualify for the wound stripe if they required medical treatment beyond local first aid.
> 
> 12. Injuries due to accidents arising out of employment in an operational area, but not directly due to hostile action, e.g. due to collisions between ships at sea, vehicle accidents, flying accidents, handling of lethal weapons, gun explosions, etc, do not qualify for the wound stripe.
> 
> 13. Wounds and/or injuries that are self-inflicted do not qualify for the wound stripe.


----------



## the 48th regulator

However, is it optional for uniforms?

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

It will be worn on the uniform Tess. The first highlighted sentence confirms that.

Will be worn on uniform; optional once retired.


----------



## Michael OLeary

I suppose this may be interpreted at the "optional" aspect:



> 6. Claims and Entitlements:  All CF members who consider that they are entitled to a wound stripe *may* initiate a claim to their CO.



Though once requested and presented, it's part of your uniform IAW the Dress regulation.


----------



## the 48th regulator

That is what I thought.

I have seen too many people indicate that they wear what they want, and confirmnation by some that it is okay.  Especially in this thread.  I thought the good old Military had gone and changed on me.

dileas

tess


----------



## Badanai

A big change since we got awarded ours wound strips eh Tess.. In fact wasn't  it me that got yours, since Toronto didn't have them.  I got yours from Petawawa supply. Its been awhile and they say memory is the first to go LOL


----------



## the 48th regulator

Cutter2001ca said:
			
		

> A big change since we got awarded ours wound strips eh Tess.. In fact wasn't  it me that got yours, since Toronto didn't have them.  I got yours from Petawawa supply. Its been awhile and they say memory is the first to go LOL



That's right, the only option they gave us was put the stripe on, or put white paint on rocks.

dileas

tess


----------



## Privateer

It appears that the medal is in the works:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2007/09/04/pf-4468648.html



> 'Crimson Maple Leaf' misguided
> By PETER WORTHINGTON
> 
> The Canadian government is considering issuing a new medal for military personnel wounded by enemy action -- our version of the U.S. Purple Heart, awarded to those who are wounded or killed by the enemy.
> 
> Several groups of veterans have been lobbying for this. A letter by Gordon O'Connor shortly before he was replaced as defence minister seems to confirm that a design is already being created.
> 
> If authorized, such a medal seems bound to provoke controversy. As well as being a sort of "monkey see, monkey do" copycat of the Purple Heart, it puts those wounded in Afghanistan on a pedestal higher than those wounded in the Second World War and Korea, where casualties were greater.
> 
> Presently, those wounded wear a embroidered gold wound stripe on the left sleeve of their uniform.
> 
> Terry Herrett, president of the Surrey, B.C. chapter of the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association (CPVA) submitted a proposed design for the wound medal to his MP, Mark Warawa, who forwarded it to then-defence minister O'Connor.
> 
> Herrett proposes calling the medal the "Purple Cross," with a purple ribbon flanked by white and red stripes, with the purple embossed on the cross.
> 
> O'Connor wrote to Herrett: "Creating a new medal is the right thing to do. You will be pleased to know that upon taking office I directed the Canadian Forces to begin working on the creation of a new medal to replace the Wound Stripe."
> 
> PROPOSALS
> 
> DND and the Governor General's office are reviewing proposals.
> 
> O'Connor's successor in defence, Peter MacKay, is unlikely to second-guess his predecessor on this issue, since O'Connor is a retired brigadier-general.
> 
> Murray Sinnot, an ex-solder and retired Windsor , Ont., police officer has lobbied veterans groups, MPs and even Don Cherry about the wound medal, which he suggests could be called the "Crimson Maple Leaf."
> 
> While there's wide support to honour those killed or wounded in Afghanistan (Herrett proposes that those killed in action get the new medal posthumously), veterans of WWII and Korea were often bemused at the American custom of awarding a medal to those wounded.
> 
> Canadian soldiers used to feel it was better not to be wounded.
> 
> Ray Kekkonen, vice-president of the CPVA, says his organization has made no official decision about the wound medal, and that Herrett's design "is purely personal." The Royal Canadian Legion is also noncommittal. Vince Courtenay, a Korean veteran and publisher of Koreavetnews.com has "no argument with the concept" but dislikes calling it the copycat "Purple Cross," and prefers the medal not to be in the form of a cross, "which usually denotes valour."
> 
> Cliff Chadderton, chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations (56 member organizations) who lost a leg in WWII while an officer with the Winnipeg Rifles in Holland, thinks awarding a medal for getting wounded "is heading in the wrong direction."
> 
> SLIGHTED
> 
> To award a medal to the wounded of Afghanistan could be interpreted as a slight to those thousands who were casualties in WWII, Korea and on UN peacekeeping missions. Such a medal would almost have to be awarded retrospectively to the wounded of past wars -- a huge bureaucratic nightmare. And, again, imitating the Americans.
> 
> Canada already dishes out more service medals than in WWI, WWII and Korea combined. Our soldiers have always tried not to get wounded, and kept casualties low. If a medal is authorized for being wounded, that tradition may be about to end, with some individuals seeking light wounds in order to get a medal.


----------



## Badanai

I like the last post except the part stating that troops will look to get slightly injured to receive an medal. Thats just nuts getting injured is not a fun way to get a medal


----------



## RHFC_piper

Huh... Interesting.



> O'Connor wrote to Herrett: "Creating a new medal is the right thing to do. You will be pleased to know that upon taking office I directed the Canadian Forces to begin working on the creation of a *new medal to replace the Wound Stripe*."



Replace?  Just from my own perspective, I see a slight problem...



> The Canadian government is considering issuing a new medal for military personnel *wounded by enemy action*



Soooo.... what about friendly fire?  No medal and no ribbon?  Not that it really matters either way... but some soldiers wounded by friendly fire might want to retain their Wound Stripe as a reminder of friends lost in the event (thats how I see it), or, as others have discussed, some might not want to wear a symbol of their injuries at all... sooo, no wound stripe means no options and no insignia for those wounded in combat, but not by the enemy... and if the medal is awarded to those who have been wounded in FF in combat, what about those who don't want to wear it...  Too many problems.



> While there's wide support to honour those killed or wounded in Afghanistan (Herrett proposes that those killed in action get the new medal posthumously), veterans of WWII and Korea were often bemused at the American custom of awarding a medal to those wounded.



Someone get the can opener... here's a can of worms.



> Canadian soldiers used to feel it was better not to be wounded.



Used to?  I didn't think it was 'good times'...  :



> To award a medal to the wounded of Afghanistan could be interpreted as a slight to those thousands who were casualties in WWII, Korea and on UN peacekeeping missions. Such a medal would almost have to be awarded retrospectively to the wounded of past wars -- a huge bureaucratic nightmare. And, again, imitating the Americans.



Yeah... I have an idea... lets spend time and money changing something which works just fine as it instead of using those resources to, oh, I don't know... Improve how we care for those wounded in battle... which is already a "bureaucratic nightmare".



> If a medal is authorized for being wounded, that tradition may be about to end, with some individuals seeking light wounds in order to get a medal.



Wow...  I don't know. You can get a pretty spiffy medal for not getting shot... Canadian Decoration. Just gotta live long enough to get it. 

I'll trade all the medals in the CF for the hunk of my leg thats rotting in the sands of Kandahar... and no "crimson maple leaf" will ever make up for the fine soldiers who fell in battle, or the countless others who are now lost to the CF due to their injuries.

I'd rather be able to wear my uniform than have a medal with no uniform to wear it on...  I don't think any reasonable soldier would put themselves at that kind of risk for a ribbon and a hunk of metal.


----------



## Greymatters

_From previous post - "SLIGHTED - To award a medal to the wounded of Afghanistan could be interpreted as a slight to those thousands who were casualties in WWII, Korea and on UN peacekeeping missions. Such a medal would almost have to be awarded retrospectively to the wounded of past wars -- a huge bureaucratic nightmare. And, again, imitating the Americans.  Canada already dishes out more service medals than in WWI, WWII and Korea combined. Our soldiers have always tried not to get wounded, and kept casualties low. If a medal is authorized for being wounded, that tradition may be about to end, with some individuals seeking light wounds in order to get a medal."_ 

I think this is the wrong attitude to take.  It is not the current soldiers' fault that previous Canadian governments failed to recognize previous serving members for their sacrifices.  Why not complain about the extra phone calls (30 minutes per week) or the Internet access?  After all, nobody in WW1, 2, or Korea had this.  Why should we get body armour when nobody in previous wars had it?  Come on, we should be standing on a soapbox and complaining why it took so long, not griping about how the troops are getting something we didnt get before.   

Reference the implications that some individuals may try to get wounded just to get a medal.  Someone has been watching too many episodes of MASH when the cowardly and unethical Frank Burns tried to get his Purple Heart.  Granted, there may be one or two guys out of several thousands who may try this, maybe, but its not a serious problem to consider.  What should be considered will be the thorny quagmire of defining what is and is not an injury deserving a medal, and how severe the injury has to be to qualify.


----------



## HItorMiss

Don't want it, don't need it!

My stripe connects me to all those before me, I am more then happy to wear it. Though I would rather not have been given it period.

Greymatter to answer your question on criteria all one would need to do is carry over the criteria for the wound stripe no need to reinvent the wheel. Still I would rather not have it exist at all and stick with the wound stripe.


----------



## geo

For most serving members, the wound stripe on their uniform does the same thing as the proposed medal
Thus, there is no real need for the medal - for serving members.

Former members who have suffered from wounds, there is no option to wear a wound stripe on their blazer or jacket.  For those that wish to show they have been caught in the sights of the ennemy and lived to tell the tale, the new gong makes sense... but, again, past members have never seen a need to advertise their injuries.


----------



## Franko

geo said:
			
		

> Former members who have suffered from wounds, there is no option to wear a wound stripe on their blazer or jacket.  For those that wish to show they have been caught in the sights of the ennemy and lived to tell the tale, the new gong makes sense... but, again, past members have never seen a need to advertise their injuries.



I thought that if you were awarded the stripe that you were also allowed to wear it on appropriate civilian attire?

Regards


----------



## geo

I am sure you can BUT, how many people have you ever seen wearing a wound stripe on their blazer?
In 35 yrs, I haven't met one


----------



## the 48th regulator

geo said:
			
		

> For most serving members, the wound stripe on their uniform does the same thing as the proposed medal
> Thus, there is no real need for the medal - for serving members.
> 
> Former members who have suffered from wounds, there is no option to wear a wound stripe on their blazer or jacket.  For those that wish to show they have been caught in the sights of the ennemy and lived to tell the tale, the new gong makes sense... but, again, past members have never seen a need to advertise their injuries.



Here here, exactly why I haven't.



			
				Recce By Death said:
			
		

> I thought that if you were awarded the stripe that you were also allowed to wear it on appropriate civilian attire?
> 
> Regards



I am not about to sew one on my suit, I wear it to other functions, unless they continued an old tradition and issued metal ones that you pin on.

Either way, I am proud of every thing I have done, even being wounded, as I did it while serving my country.  Yep, wearing the blue beret, but it was my thick skull that saved me!

dileas

tess


----------



## Badanai

That's right Tess it was your thick head that saved ya LOL Love ya brother..There is a long way to go in honoring and taking care of our injured soldiers. Hopefully they'll put in just the same amount of effort with the injured are they do with the repatriation. I am reading the Needs analyzes oh the injured soldiers returning to Canada. Wow the stories. Its scary to hear that the treatment of returning injured soldiers has not gotten better since we were injured Tess.


----------



## medaid

Well I don't know about that Cutter2001ca

I know a guy personally whose been injured overseas, and is getting treatment for his injuries, albeit finally. I think things are slowly coming around. I mean, yes it's taking time, and yes sometimes you wish you could smack them, but still... progress is coming. Slowly...


----------



## the 48th regulator

agreed,

Slowly....very slowly...

dileas

tess


----------



## Badanai

hey I am not saying its all bad... The report I am reading was just done by OSSIS to the CDS. When they send injured soldiers home that have to use crutches and carried they're kit and have to take civi airplanes to get back to Canada.. I think there is a problem. When solders wake up in a German hospital and no one speaks English to the soldier problem. When a soldier is in a hospital for months and no one from the until or military contacts or goes and sees them I see a problem. But theses are stories told in the report to the CDS


----------



## medaid

I too see that as a problem. No contact from your unit or the military is just wrong. We're a family. Brothers and Sisters in arms, and we should take care of one another. If that means driving to a hospital near me to visit a soldier who I don't know, and have never met before, well so be it. 

One thing that annoyed me greatly is that most Reserve unit do not have a good rear party system in place, thus ignoring the family of the dployed members. Which causes much grief, and doesn't make the family too supportive of the military in general. 

But hey, that's another topic all together...


----------



## Greymatters

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> I thought that if you were awarded the stripe that you were also allowed to wear it on appropriate civilian attire?



Is it me or would that look... I hate to use the word silly, but it would certainly look out of place...


----------



## geo

In my Grand dad,s memorabilia I have an old pin "for service at the front"

while this pin is not the exclusive domain of soldiers who "got their blighty", there was a certain exclusivity about the pin

Might this be a solution?


----------



## Badanai

MedTech said:
			
		

> I too see that as a problem. No contact from your unit or the military is just wrong. We're a family. Brothers and Sisters in arms, and we should take care of one another. If that means driving to a hospital near me to visit a soldier who I don't know, and have never met before, well so be it.
> 
> One thing that annoyed me greatly is that most Reserve unit do not have a good rear party system in place, thus ignoring the family of the dployed members. Which causes much grief, and doesn't make the family too supportive of the military in general.
> 
> But hey, that's another topic all together...



I agree 100% the military MUST do a lot more to support the reserves. Ever since the early 90's the reg force has relied on the reserves more and more for they're numbers and in return the military does not give the reserves the support that they need and deserve.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Alright gang,

I am just as guilty, and all were very excellent posts and views, but lets get back on track.

Otherwise I will get my pee pee spanked by the Mods....

dileas

tess


----------



## Greymatters

You mean Mods dont give each other negatives?  Perhaps we need an extra counter for Mods showing +/-/PPS.   ;D

Sorry, couldnt resist...


----------



## Badanai

ya ya my fault Tess LOL


----------



## Roy Harding

Found this in today's (7 Sep) Toronto Sun Letters to The Editor (http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Letters/2007/09/07/4476060.html) :



> Vets need support, not symbols
> 
> Re "Crimson Maple Leaf misguided" (Peter Worthington, Sept. 4): I am an active member of the Canadian Armed Forces and have been for the past 23 years. I started out as "grunt" back in the early '80s, when our two main jobs were to give a token show of force against the forces of communism in Europe and to fulfil Lester Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize idea as peacekeepers in Cyprus.
> 
> We were the "Break Glass in Case of War" society within the normal Canadian civilian society. An unknown, little talked about and under-appreciated part of the larger framework of Canada. This public apathy explains our decades-long decline in budgets, personnel, equipment and morale.
> 
> My question is to Canada. Has your collective guilt been building up so much that you wear red on Fridays, feel the need to buy a coffee (Tim Horton's mind you) for a soldier on-line and put magnetic ribbons on your cars? Now you want to give wounded soldiers a medal, the Crimson Maple Leaf? Is this your idea of support to the troops?
> 
> I know Canadians enjoy feeling guilty. We can't help it, that's what makes us Canadian. And you now feel this guilt the most because of what the war on terror has done. It's all over the newspapers and TV about how this conflict is robbing us of a vital part of society, our young people. Every war does that, just look at the Canadian war cemeteries in Europe and Asia and now the present conflict in Afghanistan.
> 
> This proposal to award a medal for wounds received in this conflict sounds good to the public -- a little token of their appreciation for a job well done. However this is not what we signed up for. I was taught early in my training that getting wounded or killed was seen as a failure, either on your part for not following the training, the training itself or both. So it could be said with this proposed medal we are rewarding failure.
> 
> What should the criteria be for awarding this medal? Being wounded in a combat zone, peacekeeping duties, civil emergencies, international disasters, or involved in a traffic accident in a combat zone? The severity of the wound? From hostile fire? From friendly fire? This is way too ambiguous. It's just so the public and the politicians can feel better about themselves. They are handing out medals like band-aids.
> 
> If Canada wants to give our military a collective hug please start with those surviving Canadians who came before us and received honourable wounds in wartime or gave the supreme sacrifice. Those still around, and their families, would love to receive our gratitude for a job well done when Canada had the need to "Break the Glass Because of War."
> 
> Frank Maher
> 
> Cold Lake, Alta.
> 
> (Well said)


----------



## Red 6

This idea that getting wounded is your own fault or a sign of failure is worse than wrong. It's just plain dumb. War is not a football game and bad things happen to good people in battle. You might be the most squared away Soldier, but if a mortar round lands on your fix, or a sabot round goes through your turret, what were you supposed to do? Everyone who has served in combat knows just how random it is. On the subject of a medal, the Purple Heart is one of the most highly respected of the US combat medals. I have never heard a single comment from anyone who has been in combat like what the above writer portrayed in regard to getting hit. I may be reading too much into it, but to me, it seems disrespectful. I'm having a hard time believing a Soldier could actually feel like this.


----------



## HItorMiss

I failed did I...... I didn't follow the training..... 

Those that didn't come home are failures, all those guys who caught shrapnel somehow F**CKED up eh....


SO mad....so so mad..... Anyone know if you can do online rebutals?


----------



## RCR Grunt

.... I don't recall being trained to pull a "Matrix"  during battle school... must've skipped that PO.


----------



## HItorMiss

We must have fallen asleep Grunt, you know how Todd used to give us Nap time  :


----------



## RCR Grunt

Taken from The Torch:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/03/wound-stripe.html

""With a number of Canadian soldiers wounded recently in Afghanistan, I realized very few people - inside or outside the CF - know about wound stripes, a dress distinction with almost a century of convoluted tradition reintroduced to the CF a dozen years ago."

""Apparently created in WWI, soldiers 'injured through hostile action in the First World War were permitted to wear a brass metal stripe, mounted vertically, on the left forearm of their uniform jacket.'"

"WWII saw some controversy in their wear:"

    "First World War veterans serving in the Active Army were prevented from wearing their 1914-1918 wound stripes, with the exception of members of the Veterans Guard, in 1941. Orders in 1942, as well as the War Dress Regulations in 1943, abolished the wearing of wound stripes by members of the Veterans Guard also."

    "Special recognition for injured soldiers in World War Two was not implemented until 1944, when orders advised that "His Majesty the King has been graciously pleased to approve the institution of Wound Stripes," The stripes were not to be considered a reward, and posthumous issues would not be made. Each occasion in which a soldier was wounded or injured, subject to certain conditions, entitled the soldier to a gold stripe of russia braid 1-1/2 inches long. Personnel wounded in previous Wars, regardless of how many times, were entitled to wear a single red rayon stripe."

"What ridiculous bureaucratic waffling on an issue of simple recognition for soldiers. It seems this is not a new affliction, and that the chances of correcting it are historically slim."

"The Canadian Forces reintroduced the symbol for uniformed wear in the mid-nineties, doing away with the red stripe as irrelevant: 'A wound is a wound, and active service can be indicated in other ways if necessary.'"

"Here are the criteria for eligibility:"

    "A wound stripe recognizes injury directly attributable to hostile action received in honorable circumstances in an operational area, and requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid. Individuals who are injured in accidents in a special duty area or while employed on domestic provision of service operations or training exercises do not qualify for a wound stripe. Wound stripes are not issued posthumously."


An interesting point later on in the article reads:"It can be worn on civilian clothing - like a suit jacket: 'Personnel, who by reason of their service have become entitled to wear a wound stripe, may, at their own option, continue to wear them on civilian clothes after cessation of military service.'"

So, if its good enough for my Great-grampy in WW1, and Grand-pa in WW2, well then its plenty good enough for me.  I think what we need is more education for the public about the stripe, not another medal.  Perhaps one of those heritage commercials they used to run all the time, or a documentary on the History channel.

In my opinion, the medal screams "Hey, look at me!  I got blowed up!"  But the stripe is humble.  It says "What, oh this?  Oh, its nothing, just a little hiccup in Afghanistan is all, just a scratch really."


----------



## RCR Grunt

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> We must have fallen asleep Grunt, you know how Todd used to give us Nap time  :



Yes... nap time .... if by nap time you mean fearing for your life and praying you didn't screw up and make him yell.  Then yeah, there was plenty of nap time!

Now stay on topic, dammit!  You should know better!


----------



## Greymatters

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the medal screams "Hey, look at me!  I got blowed up!"  But the stripe is humble.  It says "What, oh this?  Oh, its nothing, just a little hiccup in Afghanistan is all, just a scratch really."



Thats is some excellent insight.  Would it be fair to say that most people notice the decorations on the chest before whatever's on the arm? 

Well, unless you are in the infantry.  Back then I always looked for the 'God' crest before worrying about anything else...


----------



## RCR Grunt

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Thats is some excellent insight.  Would it be fair to say that most people notice the decorations on the chest before whatever's on the arm?
> 
> Well, unless you are in the infantry.  Back then I always looked for the 'God' crest before worrying about anything else...



LOL... I know what you mean, my analysis starts at a distance with the sight of the red sash, then look for the god crest, then medals, then funny badges.

But, as far as "regular" people go, those that know the stripe will know.  Those that don't may ask, and you can choose to tell them what you wish.  Those that don't care get ignored, or if they are rude enough, throat punched.  Now, if it were a flashy medal touted by the politicians and swooned over by the MSM, it would be a lot harder for guys as humble as myself or HoM to fly under the radar.


----------



## R.O.S

I have no words for Frank Maher article. It actually disgusted me. A person from the CF should know better.


I only agree that a medal is not much to give for the sacrific that CF members undertake for our nation as their sacrific exceeds medals or words (but don't take this comment the wrong way, I support such a medal). Thank you all who have given so much


----------



## geo

FWIW, given that most all people I know who have gotten injured won't ruin their suit by stitching a wound stripe onto their jacket, I would suggest that it would be appropriate to "convert" the wound stripe to a medal of some sort.  Either from the get go - or upon their retirement from the CF - when they hang up their uniform.

Those who have earned their blighty are entitled to wear their distinction - should they care to show it.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Just to offer one further alternative, why not an official pin to accompany the issue of the wound stripe which could be worn on civilian dress either before or after release.  Something along the lines of the War Service Badges.


----------



## geo

good one Michael.
I still have my grand dad's Class A "for service at the front" badge.
Would never think of wearing it but, it's a nice keepsake.


----------



## geo

Just got this from someone who was at the combined army conference...
wound stripe being replaced or supplemented by a "sacrifice medal".  
Target 1st issue - November - Rememberance day time frame...


----------



## Franko

So if they turn around and force troops to wear it....are they going to retroactively issue it to all vets of every conflict that were wounded?

Thoughts?


----------



## RHFC_piper

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> So if they turn around and force troops to wear it....are they going to retroactively issue it to all vets of every conflict that were wounded?
> 
> Thoughts?



This aught to be interesting.  

There is a Col (ret) in my Regiments predecessor Regiments association group, the Highland Light Infantry of Canada, who was, during WW2, wounded, repatriated then returned to lead his unit across the Rhine where he was wounded a second time (Ref: Colonel Doug Barry)... he doesn't wear either of his wound stripes, and hasn't since the late 40's, when he decided it was a part of his life he didn't want to remember (I've had long, and very interesting conversations with him... for obvious reasons).  
He has an outstanding rack of medals, most, if not all, are from campaigns, conflicts, long service, valour and bravery... somehow, I doubt he would ever want to add a wound medal to that rack.

Some how, in my mind, this all seems like a silly and pointless idea... Why meddle with a system which is sufficient for the need. it just seems like posturing by politicians. Besides, how much resources were wasted on this? could these resources not been used for better purposes?  





On a personal note... I just got my GCS mounted... I don't want to have to pay for it to be remounted just because of a new medal I don't really want...


----------



## armyvern

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> On a personal note... I just got my GCS mounted... I don't want to have to pay for it to be remounted just because of a new medal I don't really want...



On that note, your first mounting of it, and any subsequent remounting of it which is required due to presentation of further medals and/or bars is fully reimburseable by the Crown.


----------



## RHFC_piper

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> On that note, your first mounting of it, and any subsequent remounting of it which is required due to presentation of further medals and/or bars is fully reimburseable by the Crown.



I should have added; Replica.   I'm not going to mount or wear any of my original medals.  

A soldier from my unit lost his original Bosnia medals 'cause someone grabbed his DEU jacket off the back of his chair at a Legion on Remembrance Day a few years back... I decided then that I would not wear original medals.



But, all this kinda brings up another point; for those of us who chose not to wear original medals, as well as those who have mess kit, how long is it going to take for replicas and minis of this new goofy medal to come out?  I figure it would take as long as it has for other relatively new medals (GCS, GSM, etc.)...  Just a thought.


----------



## warrickdll

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> ...
> ...how long is it going to take for replicas and minis of this new *goofy* medal to come out?  I figure it would take as long as it has for other relatively new medals (GCS, GSM, etc.)...
> ...



“Goofy” seems a bit extreme (unless it actually ends up looking goofy); after all, it will solve your previously mentioned problem:



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> ...
> Also, with all this 'wound stripe' talk; some of us wounded in Afghanistan are Reservists in silly-hat-and-dress (Highland) regiments, and thusly wear uniforms where the current issue stripe does not.. um.. work well... uh.. fit... It looks silly.  Kind of like having it on Scarlets.  Anyway, the way my regiment wants to deal with it is using the old style gold braid, or Brass bar.  I think it's a little more distinguishing.  I'm thinking this may cause some issues with CF dress regs.
> ...



What does seem “goofy” is Canada having a medal for Southwest Asia (SWASM) and yet still awarding a “General” medal (either as the GCS or GSM).


----------



## geo

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> So if they turn around and force troops to wear it....are they going to retroactively issue it to all vets of every conflict that were wounded?
> 
> Thoughts?


1.   Troops in the past received a wound stripe.
2.   Whenever the CDS decrees that a sacrifice medal comes into force, new recipients will receive the sacrifice medal and not the wound stripe.
3.   The CDS & his advisors will determine how far back (if any) the CF will go to retroactively present medals

4.   From the tone of your post & comment - you aren't interested in receiving it - assuming you already have the stripe... so what are you worried about?


----------



## RHFC_piper

Iterator said:
			
		

> “Goofy” seems a bit extreme (unless it actually ends up looking goofy); after all, it will solve your previously mentioned problem:



Perhaps "goofy" is a little extreme...  But last I heard, they want to call this thing the "Crimson Maple Leaf".  A few months ago, there were some "artistic ideas" floating around on the web (haven't been able to find them again... if anyone has a source), but the majority of them looked like a red enamel maple leaf with a white/gold trim...  They mention it in this article: Link



Just a thought; If/when this medal comes into effect, would it have post nominals? or numbers/bars for subsequent wounds?  




			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> What does seem “goofy” is Canada having a medal for Southwest Asia (SWASM) and yet still awarding a “General” medal (either as the GCS or GSM).



Heh... Well... I think what's worse is the bizarre criteria for the issue of the SWASM...  None of the guys in TF3-06 battle group got SWASMs, just the GCS (or nothing if they already had one), but the force protection platoon got the SWASM and the GCS... their reasoning for this made some sense; the Force protection guys got there 2 months before us and thus, were there before the hand over to NATO (or so I'm told) and so they fall under both commands for long enough to receive both medals... seems fair to me... but, a contracts clerk from my unit, who flew in with me, also received the SWASM and GCS (not a knock agains clerks... he's a good buddy of mine...) although he spent as much time in theater as anyone else in the battle group...  How does that work?



But, I digress. It's not about medals... and neither is this rant... its about the system of distribution. It's just confusing and will probably never cease to be confusing.


----------



## HItorMiss

CSA you cannot pick and choose what decorations you can wear once they are awarded.... Well not to my knowledge anyway.

I hate the medal but if I am given it I will wear because it's the rules.


----------



## RHFC_piper

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> CSA you cannot pick and choose what decorations you can wear once they are awarded.... Well not to my knowledge anyway.



This came up before in this thread...  It was the basis for debate.  Wound stripe: optional, Medal: Mandatory.



			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I hate the medal but if I am given it I will wear because it's the rules.



Agreed.

HoM; At least you can say you have yours as a result of enemy fire, while in combat... far more distinguished than a mere accident... or friendly fire.

I wear my wound stripe, for now, for only a few reasons; 
- My CoC expects that I wear it. I'm sure that if I were with 1 RCR as part of the big R, I could just take the stripe and toss it in a drawer and no one would say a word about it, as there would be many others around me who have, most likely done the same... where as, there are only 2 people in my unit, who are active members, who have a wound stripe... and in a unit of 200, we're easy to find. So needless to say, the day my RSM found out I had a wound stripe issued, he was checking sleeves.

- It's small, inconspicuous and very few people actually know what it is and/or call attention to it.  Most people ask me if it for years of service... I usually respond with "yeah.. something like that..."  This way, I can avoid discussing it if I choose.

- I can remove it any time I want.  Once I'm medically fit to return to duty, I plan to move on to another trade in another element of the forces (as long as everything pans out) and I would rather not show up to a trades course with a wound stripe hanging off my sleeve.   And the GCS is an innocuous little medal issued to everyone who deploys to Afghanistan and no one will assume anything other than where I went in my PRes life.  
If things don't go as planned, and I stay in my unit, or "medically release", then I will have the choice to not wear the stripe... if it's a medal, it goes on my rack for all to see... in which case it might as well have a bar on it which reads "Accident".  

- In ceremonial dress, which I wear a lot, due to band functions and such, the left arm is pretty much covered by the Pipers Plaid (big tartan blanket worn around the body and over the left shoulder like a cape) anyway, so no one really sees it...  And I already have to wear my 1 medal close to the middle of my uniform, or it gets crushed by the pipes.

In summation; I agree with HoM.  I don't like the idea of drawing attention to something which may, in some cases, be quite embarrassing or depressing... But, if I am handed a medal to wear by my CoC I will wear it. I don't have to like it, I just have to do it.



			
				CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Here is the article from CTV news.  Doesn't look like "political posturing", looks like an initiative by veterans.  I have also heard from various news sources (can't find links right now) that Mr. Bill Tanner of Chemical Warfare Agent Testing Recognition Program  fame is a key supporter.  Interesting the pressure that veterans' lobby groups, particularly in our demographic situation where the Canadian population is greying, can apply.  Reminder also that this sort of thing would go nowhere if the CDS was not in favour of it, so are you now assessing him as a politician who is posturing?



Sometimes, ideas like this begin as well intentioned gestures by the caring and concerned people of the world, and are then corrupted by those who see an opportunity to gain.   I have already witnessed local politicians bicker and hen-peck at this topic as well as others (like "support the troops" ribbons on city/emergency vehicles.)  It always starts with; "we should do this to show our support." and usually ends up at; "my opponent doesn't believe our troops deserve support 'cause they don't support this idea..." 
Starts off right, but then becomes a political pawn topic... even if it's subtle. 
Now, don't get me wrong with all this; I don't blame those who came up with the original plan, they mean well, but, as they say; one bad apple spoils the bunch.

As for the CDS's involvement: when I found my way back up to Petawawa to drop in on some of my buddies from tour (as well as for the BOI briefing), I heard a lot of the same thing... the boys told me tails of meeting the CDS out in the front, and all the things he promised the boys when they came home; Wound medals, Combat badges, valour and bravery medals, extended leave, etc, etc... granted, the boys aren't dumb, and they took all this with a grain of salt... but some of them were pretty upset when none of it happened.  Now, this is no slag against the CDS, lord knows I love the man and would follow him into the 10 level of hell armed only with a sword made of ice, but if you think he doesn't play the politics card, at his level... well.. c'mon...  (it is, in the end, for the benefit of the forces.) Especially at that point in the tour, when more and more wounded were coming home, and we had fought in some pretty big fights, the people at home became restless... natural recourse is to try to settle the masses, while raising moral with the troops.

Keep in mind, the majority of politics happens outside of the government (meaning there is more politics in the work place than in the house of commons.).

Anyway, it is of no consequence.  If there is, indeed, an new medal for getting wounded, and it is to replace the wound stripe (or not), I will give it the due attention it deserves and wear it like any other accoutrement I wear on my silly highland uniform covered in band bling... just another shiny thing on a fancy wool garb.


----------



## Jarnhamar

So no one will be receiving the SWASM anymore?


----------



## Franko

geo said:
			
		

> 4.   From the tone of your post & comment - you aren't interested in receiving it - assuming you already have the stripe... _*so what are you worried about*_?



Tone? There was no tone at all, just a question. Don't have a stripe either FYI.

A wound stripe is not mandatory to wear, a medal is. 

My worries are this.......how are my troops that have the stripe going to react when I, or others in the CoC, tell them to put on their medal? 

Regards


----------



## Reccesoldier

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> CSA you cannot pick and choose what decorations you can wear once they are awarded.... Well not to my knowledge anyway.
> 
> I hate the medal but if I am given it I will wear because it's the rules.



Most definitely NOT true.  There is not a single article in CFP 200 that states ANY medal MUST be worn.  

While I disagree with the concept of this new medal I am more than a little miffed at the attitudes that are being expressed here.  Perhaps it is because of my former association with DH&R but I will say this.  

Should this medal be approved, and this is not written in stone yet as far as I know , and should anyone else _"Know"_, that information should have been held as "medals in confidence" until the paperwork was signed by the GG.  At any rate, the medal will not be some sort of cheap chocolate Christmas coin.  I have personally seen the proposed design for the proposed medal (and worked for the guy that drew it) and it is neither ugly, nor tacky.

Take a look at the improvements done to medals in the last number of years.  The SSM, originally a cheap looking blurred chrome mess has been tidy'd up to make the entire medal look crisper , with more detail.  Same goes for the CD, the new ones are made at the Royal Canadian Mint and are of a much higher quality than those before it.  Compare your old one to a new one and you will see the difference right away.

Hell, the entire medals system has been overhauled in the last few years, and the creation of Directorate of Honours and Recognition as its own directorate sends a message as to DND's recognition of the importance of recognition.  Gone are the days when one lone guy was the CF Medals distribution section, and it took a year or more to get your gong.

Basically there are a lot of people here talking out of their butts, agree or disagree with the medal, that is your prerogative but the rest is speculation and in many cases it disparages the work of some truly fine people..

@Piper, your CoC can "expect" you to wear your wound stripe but you are in no way compelled to do so.


----------



## Journeyman

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> CSA you cannot pick and choose what decorations you can wear once they are awarded.... Well not to my knowledge anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> *Most definitely NOT true.  There is not a single article in CFP 200 that states ANY medal MUST be worn. *
Click to expand...

Well, Reccesoldier has provided what I believe to be the DS solution (I trust his DHH advice -- although I didn't know of the name change or the fact that you're now "former" ).

And, bear in mind that I've spent my whole career being the "before picture" for dress & deportment, parade-square BS.....

But I have all my gongs mounted, since they tend to be worn only on Rememberance Day (and an increasing number of military funerals) and the Mess Kit, which is all about looking pretty. For the DEU-shirt type ribbons, however, I have only my tour ribbons. I don't bother with the CD or the other non-tour ribbons (incl the peacekeeping medal awarded for already having a tour medal  : ). Why? Because only the tour medals matter to _me_. Occasionally someone will ask why I don't have even a CD (especially if I'm wearing any other wings, fish badges, etc)...but even that is usually from the senior officers with _only_ CD/Golden Jube/125th Anniv....

RHFC Piper, and any others wringing their hands over a not-yet-issued award, wear what you want (out of those that you are entitled to wear). 
It's just a freakin' _BADGE_

But that's just me.


----------



## tomahawk6

This is an emotional issue because it flies in the face of tradition. The Purple Heart is our oldest medal and if it were to be replaced by a Wound Stripe there would be a huge outcry. NDHQ shouldnt be opening this Pandora's box and they need to shut this concept down ASAP for the sake of maintaining tradition.


----------



## warrickdll

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This is an emotional issue because it flies in the face of tradition. The Purple Heart is our oldest medal and if it were to be replaced by a Wound Stripe there would be a huge outcry. NDHQ shouldnt be opening this Pandora's box and they need to shut this concept down ASAP for the sake of maintaining tradition.



The US use of a medal for those wounded would be an example in the opposite direction. 

The medal uses indirect lineage to the 18th century award; and its current use replaced the US wound stripe of the First World War.

The indirect lineage was a great idea; linking past to present. I would hope that we have done something similar by linking it in some way to the memento Memorial Cross.


----------



## c4th

Iterator said:
			
		

> The indirect lineage was a great idea; linking past to present. I would hope that we have done something similar by linking it in some way to the memento Memorial Cross.



It appears to me that the lineage is well in tact.  Wound stripes were issued in both WWI and WWII to Canadians (by the thousands.)

This forum had an excellent discussion on the matter seven years ago:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/3021.0.html

If it isn't broken...


----------



## HItorMiss

Reccesoldier

Just so were clear I don't know anything about the design nor do I think it will be a give away or chocolate coin giveaway/look alike. I just personally happen to disagree with moving from the wound stripe to a medal on historical and personal level. My wound stripe is small understated something that even now with so many us wearing them is still little known about. I can talk about what it means should I choose to or not to those who ask what it is. However a Medal is a different story I think  many Canadians will know what it is (Like Americans with the Purple Heart) and as such take a very personal thing and makes it public. 

Having worked in DH&R do you know where the regs on regarding the wearing on awards (Medals, wound stripes...etc etc.) As I have been looking and basically have only found when awarded where it is to be worn and how. I was informed when asking about my wound stripe and told by my CoC that if it's given you wear it cut and dry. Hence my comment about not being allowed to pick a choose which awards you wear. I would be very intrested in seeing the rules because even in looking at the regs for the wound stripe (A distinction not an award per say)the regs never said that once awarded it that it could be not worn.


As you can see this is a both a confusing and a personal issue to many persons in the CF. Do I want a new medal, nope not at all. Hell I don't want a wound stripe really but the one thing my wound stripe does for me is in my thoughts is link me in a very tangible way back to those who were wounded in service of Canada, The Common Wealth and the Queen in many past conflicts (WW1, WW2 etc etc) and that well I guess it just makes me feel connected to a very exclusive club no one wants to be a member of by choice. I accept that I could be a minority in my thinking but those who I have talked to about this, people with wound stripes from different mission not just the current one, seem to agree with myself on it. I guess it comes down to why fix it if it is not broke?

Alright long rambling thoughts if I am confusing or not clear please tell me and I will attempt the clarify.


----------



## geo

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Tone? There was no tone at all, just a question. Don't have a stripe either FYI.
> A wound stripe is not mandatory to wear, a medal is.
> My worries are this.......how are my troops that have the stripe going to react when I, or others in the CoC, tell them to put on their medal?
> Regards


RBD,
sorry if I came across wrong....
Given that the gong is something that is coming down from NDHQ and the criteria for it's award has not been published, anything I might suggest is only conjecture.  give or take another month and we should know something about it.


----------



## PB

Not sure if we have received updates on the possible wound medal to replace the stripe, anyone in the know please fill in. I feel that it would be nice to pay proper respect to these outstanding troops, but also agree with our history being held tight. On the fence.
As for the Combat Badge, although I can see by the posts being shut down, I have to politely disagree with moderators on this one. The biggest argument against is that India C/S just need there tour medals, and everyone that counts will know. I do not see this as a strong argument. First of all, in this 360 degree war, there are other trades involved in this combat. Medics, truckers, E C/S, MPs, Arty, INT, Navy EOD, Sigs (Army and Navy). These troops are all outside the wire, on the front line, getting shot at, shooting back, and getting blown up from time to time. During certain battles ( 03 Aug 06) some of these non India C/S fought bitterly, alongside our Infantry. Here is the kicker. Did you know that the Swasm with bar is worn by hundreds of sailors who have (no disrespect intended, just a different job) sailed the Seas over there in support, but never even seen Afghanistan. I do not see this as a fair comparsion, with the combat support in the field, who had to return fire, with sailors at sea. On parade there would be no visual difference between a sailor with two combat tours, to a sailor with one, at sea, tour. To me this is a no brainer, but of course, everyone is entitled to their view. Full respect given to Infantry of course, Cheers.


----------



## vonGarvin

If you look at a World War Two veteran, and if you see the "standard five" medals (39-45 star, France/Germany Star, Defence Medal, 'Victory' medal and CVSM), you wouldn't have a clue where he served.  It mattered not.  From the photo interpretor who analysed photos of the beach that became Juno, to the Bren Gunner who was shot down on that same beach, they all did their part.

My $0.02.


----------



## geo

PB said:
			
		

> Not sure if we have received updates on the possible wound medal to replace the stripe, anyone in the know please fill in. I feel that it would be nice to pay proper respect to these outstanding troops, but also agree with our history being held tight. On the fence.
> 
> As for the Combat Badge, although I can see by the posts being shut down, I have to politely disagree with moderators on this one. The biggest argument against is that India C/S just need there tour medals, and everyone that counts will know. I do not see this as a strong argument. First of all, in this 360 degree war, there are other trades involved in this combat. Medics, truckers, E C/S, MPs, Arty, INT, Navy EOD, Sigs (Army and Navy). These troops are all outside the wire, on the front line, getting shot at, shooting back, and getting blown up from time to time. During certain battles ( 03 Aug 06) some of these non India C/S fought bitterly, alongside our Infantry. Here is the kicker. Did you know that the Swasm with bar is worn by hundreds of sailors who have (no disrespect intended, just a different job) sailed the Seas over there in support, but never even seen Afghanistan. I do not see this as a fair comparsion, with the combat support in the field, who had to return fire, with sailors at sea. On parade there would be no visual difference between a sailor with two combat tours, to a sailor with one, at sea, tour. To me this is a no brainer, but of course, everyone is entitled to their view. Full respect given to Infantry of course, Cheers.



Umm... don't see your argument for the Combat Badge.
We know that there will be three classes of badges... but that is all we know right now.
Until such time as the badge comes out and the rules & regulations on them comes out - there is no point arguing about it.... we just don't know (or aren't at liberty to discuss the matter). 
Wait out & pass your comments when there is something to comment about,.


----------



## armyvern

PB said:
			
		

> As for the Combat Badge, although I can see by the posts being shut down, I have to politely *disagree with moderators * on this one.



Just to clear this statement by you up ...

You wouldn't be disagreeing with moderators on this one, as they have been posting as regular site users; whether or not they happen to be a mod is a non-issue regarding their thoughts on the CAB.

Posts made by moderators acting in an "as staff" manner, would be followed by something like this:

"ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff"

If that's not there --- we are just the same as any other user and you are quite welcome to engage us.


----------



## PMedMoe

PB said:
			
		

> Did you know that the Swasm with bar is worn by hundreds of sailors who have (no disrespect intended, just a different job) sailed the Seas over there in support, but never even seen Afghanistan.



And SWASM stands for what? South West Asia Service Medal.  Not Afghanistan.  We got a different medal for that.


----------



## George Wallace

PB said:
			
		

> ........... I do not see this as a fair comparsion, with the combat support in the field, who had to return fire, with sailors at sea. On parade there would be no visual difference between a sailor with two combat tours, to a sailor with one, at sea, tour. To me this is a no brainer, but of course, everyone is entitled to their view. Full respect given to Infantry of course, Cheers.



Although I am Army, I find your generalization offensive.  You seem to think that the Navy is doing nothing in the Region.  You seem to have the impression that they are on a "Cruise".  You think nothing of the dangers that their Boarding Parties face daily.  You think nothing of the surveillance that they conduct.  You think nothing of the indirect support that they provide.  In the end, I think your comments were not well thought out and very inconsiderate to the role the Navy is playing.


----------



## Greymatters

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although I am Army, I find your generalization offensive.  You seem to think that the Navy is doing nothing in the Region.  You seem to have the impression that they are on a "Cruise".  You think nothing of the dangers that their Boarding Parties face daily.  You think nothing of the surveillance that they conduct.  You think nothing of the indirect support that they provide.  In the end, I think your comments were not well thought out and very inconsiderate to the role the Navy is playing.



An oft repeated theme - the other elements/arms are always slacking and doing nothing...


----------



## 2 Cdo

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And SWASM stands for what? South West Asia Service Medal.  Not Afghanistan.  We got a different medal for that.



Really? I only got SWASM for being in Afghanistan. Not like some who got 2 medals for 1 tour.


----------



## vonGarvin

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Really? I only got SWASM for being in Afghanistan. Not like some who got 2 medals for 1 tour.


And others get 1 medal for 2 tours ;D


----------



## 2 Cdo

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> And others get 1 medal for 2 tours ;D



Noted. Just being a dink.

I also recall that numbers were not to be issued for subsequent tours where SWASM was concerned.


----------



## c4th

PB said:
			
		

> Did you know that the Swasm with bar is worn by hundreds of sailors who have (no disrespect intended, just a different job) sailed the Seas over there in support, but never even seen Afghanistan. .... On parade there would be no visual difference between a sailor with two combat tours, to a sailor with one, at sea, tour.



Oh well, they appear to be entitled to wear the bar IAW http://www.forces.gc.ca/dhh/honours_awards/chart/engraph/chart_display_e.asp?cat=3&ref=SWASM  or:  The medal with bar is awarded for 30 days cumulative service after 11 September 2001 in the theatre of operations, which is a subset of the United States Central Command Area of Operation Responsibility (USCENTCOM AOR). The theatre of operations is defined as the land, sea, or air spaces of Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Suez Canal and those parts of the Indian Ocean north of 5° South Latitude and west of 68° East Longitude.

Medals and bars are not about being different.  For that matter, neither are parades.


----------



## Reccesoldier

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Noted. Just being a dink.
> 
> I also recall that numbers were not to be issued for subsequent tours where SWASM was concerned.



Numbers are a UN/NATO creation.  There is (as of yet) no scope in the CF Honours system to recognize multiple tours.


----------



## PB

"Although I am Army, I find your generalization offensive.  You seem to think that the Navy is doing nothing in the Region.  You seem to have the impression that they are on a "Cruise".  You think nothing of the dangers that their Boarding Parties face daily.  You think nothing of the surveillance that they conduct.  You think nothing of the indirect support that they provide.  In the end, I think your comments were not well thought out and very inconsiderate to the role the Navy is playing."

George,
 There seems to be some communication errors here. I certainly did not bash the Navy, I am just trying to tread lightly on a mostly Army site. I have witnessed our Army doing there job at the most extreme, and doing it well. I  would not take away any respect from anyone's overseas duty. I have been on both of the roles described, on a ship at sea during War, (Gulf and Kuwait), and in Afghanistan (Outside the wire, ROTO 1). I am taking nothing away from the Navy at all, just stating it is a different tour at sea, than living in tents, with no AC, getting shot at and possibly blown up. I see a huge difference in living conditions and threat level. If you have experienced both and think they are on the same level, you are free to your opinion, it bothers me not. I have full respect for all elements overseas, my comments are well thought out, and I am fully aware of the Navy's role; I have been wearing a anchor cap badge for 20 years. Try not to be so easily offended, that was not my intent. Cheers, PB


----------



## PB

"And SWASM stands for what? South West Asia Service Medal.  Not Afghanistan.  We got a different medal for that."
Pmedmo,

 I understand what it stands for, it was awarded to ROTO1 Afghanistan, and some earlier tours; they did not work under ISAF. If you happen to overlap commands for a certain period, you got both, SWASM and the Star, which is not as high on the medal seniority list, but looks cooler( Just my thoughts...). Main "real" issue with the Swasm, right now, no number bar for 2nd, or 3rd tours. Lots of guys came home with just a sheet of paper saying thanks. That's not cool, hopefully the numbering happens before they all retire. I think the present tour will get both, not sure on that one. Cheers, PB

GEO, 
Thanks for the update on CAB, not seeing anything on it from my Coast. Cheers, PB.


----------



## PMedMoe

BTW, I also got two medals for my tour to Bosnia;  Former Yugoslavia and Peacekeeping.    

As far as different living conditions, danger, etc.  That's what hardship pay and danger pay is for, not medals, IMHO.


----------



## PB

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> BTW, I also got two medals for my tour to Bosnia;  Former Yugoslavia and Peacekeeping.
> 
> As far as different living conditions, danger, etc.  That's what hardship pay and danger pay is for, not medals, IMHO.


Good Point, 
 The Navy also recieves Tax free danger pay, but not to the same level. To banter a bit thou, your money will be spent before you know it, medals are worn proudly, and passed on.... Just a thought, Cheers, PB.


----------



## PhilB

All though it seems that this is an unpopular concept, I think that the CAB is the perfect solution to this issue. The issue as I see it;

The same medal is being awarded for "roughly" the same theater. Many feel that the hardships, danger, etc between those actually in Afghanistan and those conducting naval operations in the area (I wont even mention those that were posted at CENTCOM during Apollo  : ) are not on par, and as such should be recognized separately.This issue is further compounded by the vastly different degrees of danger faced by those in different roles on the ground in Afghanistan. Although everyone has an extremely important job in theater, the level of danger faced by those that remain on KAF and ensure a smooth running operation is not nearly the same as those of every trade who go outside the wire.

Now I agree that danger and hardship pay is an answer to the first (navy/army) part of this problem, but not to the difference between inside the wire and outside the wire. Everyone in theater (aside from the OMLET, they make lvl 6 danger pay I believe) makes the same hardship and danger pay, despite having extremely different levels of hardship and danger. Now is the answer for those outside the wire to receive more? For those inside the wire to receive less? Who knows. I am well aware that this is another can of worms, in that what qualifies as outside the wire, but I wont get into that.

Outside of money, I think that the CAB is a great way of distinguishing between those that were involved in combat, and those that werent, those that faced the highest levels of danger and hardship in theater and those that werent. Please note that I am not saying solely the infantry, but all of those trades involved in combat. Just my two cents


----------



## PMedMoe

PB said:
			
		

> medals are worn proudly, and passed on



Too true!!



			
				PhilB said:
			
		

> Outside of money, I think that the CAB is a great way of distinguishing between those that were involved in combat, and those that werent, those that faced the highest levels of danger and hardship in theater and those that werent. Please note that I am not saying solely the infantry, but all of those trades involved in combat. Just my two cents



I agree.


----------



## PB

PhilB said:
			
		

> All though it seems that this is an unpopular concept, I think that the CAB is the perfect solution to this issue. The issue as I see it;
> 
> The same medal is being awarded for "roughly" the same theater. Many feel that the hardships, danger, etc between those actually in Afghanistan and those conducting naval operations in the area (I wont even mention those that were posted at CENTCOM during Apollo  : ) are not on par, and as such should be recognized separately.This issue is further compounded by the vastly different degrees of danger faced by those in different roles on the ground in Afghanistan. Although everyone has an extremely important job in theater, the level of danger faced by those that remain on KAF and ensure a smooth running operation is not nearly the same as those of every trade who go outside the wire.
> 
> Now I agree that danger and hardship pay is an answer to the first (navy/army) part of this problem, but not to the difference between inside the wire and outside the wire. Everyone in theater (aside from the OMLET, they make lvl 6 danger pay I believe) makes the same hardship and danger pay, despite having extremely different levels of hardship and danger. Now is the answer for those outside the wire to receive more? For those inside the wire to receive less? Who knows. I am well aware that this is another can of worms, in that what qualifies as outside the wire, but I wont get into that.
> 
> Outside of money, I think that the CAB is a great way of distinguishing between those that were involved in combat, and those that werent, those that faced the highest levels of danger and hardship in theater and those that werent. Please note that I am not saying solely the infantry, but all of those trades involved in combat. Just my two cents



100 % Agree,...... but be careful, some people hate discussing this one....which I find almost amusing, ( I am smiling) for several reasons: 1. Afraid of change.  2. Afraid they don't qualify. 3. Know they will never qualify. Good luck, PB.


----------



## Dirty Patricia

> 100 % Agree,...... but be careful, some people hate discussing this one....which I find almost amusing, ( I am smiling) for several reasons: 1. Afraid of change.  2. Afraid they don't qualify. 3. Know they will never qualify.



Well said PB!!

I saw the latest version of the CAB.  The centerpiece is the CF tri-service (cornflake) insignia.


----------



## aesop081

PB said:
			
		

> 3. Know they will never qualify.



Yes...because , deep down, we all just want to be like you guys  :


----------



## Dirty Patricia

> Yes...because , deep down, we all just want to be like you guys



We already know that.


----------



## aesop081

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> We already know THINK that.


----------



## armyvern

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> We already know that.



MODERATOR WARNING

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are not about to start going down this road again with the "we vs them" ...

EVERY member of the CF is a volunteer, and personnel serve in the positions they are tasked to while overseas. I've said it before ...

Therefore by the grace of someone higher than you in the CoC go you into the CFTPO ... they may put you in a posn inside the wire --- or one outside, irregardless of trade. Regardless of where you happened to be placed ... you all volunteered, and we respect that on this site.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## PhilB

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> MODERATOR WARNING
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> 
> We are not about to start going down this road again with the "we vs them" ...
> 
> EVERY member of the CF is a volunteer, and personnel serve in the positions they are tasked to while overseas. I've said it before ...
> 
> Therefore by the grace of someone higher than you in the CoC go you into the CFTPO ... they may put you in a posn inside the wire --- or one outside, irregardless of trade. Regardless of where you happened to be placed ... you all volunteered, and we respect that on this site.
> 
> ArmyVern
> The Milnet.ca Staff



I agree 100% Vern. That is why I wanted to be really careful in my post to make sure I wasnt singling any group out. I think some of the hardest working guys on 1-06 were the truckers braving the roads daily to bring supplies out to the FOB's. For this very reason I think the CAB is a good idea. Although everyone volunteer, and everyone does their job in theater, some jobs entail much more risk and hardship. The CAB, particularily in the tiered style that is planned, is a great way to recognize those that serve in combat.


----------



## Infanteer

PB said:
			
		

> 100 % Agree,...... but be careful, some people hate discussing this one....which I find almost amusing, ( I am smiling) for several reasons: 1. Afraid of change.  2. Afraid they don't qualify. 3. Know they will never qualify. Good luck, PB.



I'm more than happy to discuss this one.  To clarify, I am not afraid of change, I don't qualify for one, and have a fair chance of qualifying for one down the road - however, I find myself disagreeing with the concept and, more specifically, the execution.

Question is - do you need a badge to show that you were in combat?  Really, what is it for?  To show off - to feel good?  I find myself asking this when I consider the concept - especially coming from an infantry background where our very _raison d'etre_ is to get into combat - ie, we do it for a living.  However, I suppose one could extend this question to the system of honours and awards as a whole (why give a campaign ribbon like a "Former Yugo"?)  As well, in the age of Cabinet Wars (as opposed to National Wars - a combat badge would have seemed foolish to anyone in a Division in WWII) combat is a distinction for the modern professional.  I still feel uneasy about needing to differentiate to this level - Campaign Medals like SWASM or GCS serve well in recognizing that a service member dedicated a significant portion of their life to a collective cause, irregardless of trade.

Even if we were to go for a general badge, I find the real distaste in my mouth is the execution; I've seen the draft presentation on the medal; it's an ugly triangle with arrows and it comes in three fruity-flavours.  We've created an artificial system of precedence with the "Gold, Silver, Bronze" idea.  Hey, you only get bronze - weenie!  Make sure you crack a few rounds off on the next Combat Logistics Patrol to qualify for your gold!  As if trading fire with the bad guys is more deserving (for the gold) than sitting through a rocket barrage as you try to organize the next shipment of beans and bullets.  This seems implicit in the, IMHO, poor design of the proposed award.  If this does come out, I hope for the sake of being taken seriously that we move to a principle similar to that of the Aussies....


----------



## PhilB

I think that the reason that a badge is needed results from two factors;

1. That the combat we are seeing now in Afghanistan is substantially different from anything we have seen before. I dont want to say more worthy or try and quantify the validity and danger of different tours, but it is different. The CPSM was brought into effect to recognize that peacekeeping operations are different. I think a CAB appropriately recognizes combat. In fact, this sentiment is held by several other western armies, notably the US, Australia, and New Zealand.

2. The fact that there are so many campaign medals out there and IMHO they do not do an adequate job of recognizing service. They simply indicate that you were there. A CAB will differentiate being there from having fought there.

As far as the three different levels of the badge go, this is where it gets confusing. I have no knowledge on what one would have to do to qualify for any of the different levels so I cant comment on it. It seems like the three levels are an attempt to water down the award and prevent "elitism" or whatever you want to call it. If all you have to do to qualify for the bronze is "be in a combat theater" then basically everyone is entitled to one, I think that the Afghan bar on the SWASM/GCS does the job of the bronze one. I think there should be one level. It is awarded if you were in combat, i.e. being *effectively* engaged by the enemy and returning fire. Just being in the general vicinity of KAF when a rocket lands or taking a pot shot at a car passing a convoy would no qualify. Being involved in an IED attack, small arms fire, etc would.


----------



## George Wallace

PhilB said:
			
		

> 1. That the combat we are seeing now in Afghanistan is substantially different from anything we have seen before..........



I wonder how many young soldiers over the ages/centuries/decades have made the same comments?


----------



## PB

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm more than happy to discuss this one.  To clarify, I am not afraid of change, I don't qualify for one, and have a fair chance of qualifying for one down the road - however, I find myself disagreeing with the concept and, more specifically, the execution.
> 
> Question is - do you need a badge to show that you were in combat?  Really, what is it for?  To show off - to feel good?  I find myself asking this when I consider the concept - especially coming from an infantry background where our very _raison d'etre_ is to get into combat - ie, we do it for a living.  However, I suppose one could extend this question to the system of honours and awards as a whole (why give a campaign ribbon like a "Former Yugo"?)  As well, in the age of Cabinet Wars (as opposed to National Wars - a combat badge would have seemed foolish to anyone in a Division in WWII) combat is a distinction for the modern professional.  I still feel uneasy about needing to differentiate to this level - Campaign Medals like SWASM or GCS serve well in recognizing that a service member dedicated a significant portion of their life to a collective cause, irregardless of trade.



Good points, kinda answered your own question. I'm sure you have experience on other tours, but once you ride a wave in this sandbox, even more so for your trade, I think you'll be off this fence. And as a sideline, I don't care how ugly the CAB may be, the troops deserve it. Truckers for sure, as well as all support trades outside the wire. If they want to give a lower level to guys inside KAF, well that may be pushing it. I think the three levels will work fine, a little bit of admin for the proper recongition. *Nothing wrong with a healthy debate, gets people thinking. Cheers, PB.*


----------



## Infanteer

PhilB said:
			
		

> 1. That the combat we are seeing now in Afghanistan is substantially different from anything we have seen before. I dont want to say more worthy or try and quantify the validity and danger of different tours, but it is different.



Really?  I'm sure WWII or Korean War vets would disagree.  Flanking fire, ambush, support by fire, booby trap (or IED, in today's buzzword) - nothing really new here. 



> I think there should be one level. It is awarded if you were in combat, i.e. being *effectively* engaged by the enemy and returning fire. Just being in the general vicinity of KAF when a rocket lands or taking a pot shot at a car passing a convoy would no qualify. Being involved in an IED attack, small arms fire, etc would.



...and this is where the trouble of definition comes about (and my original question arises).  Is the qualifying factor firing at a hostile force?  Does the artillery count?  There guns happen to be bigger than the infantry's, but they are doing essentially the same thing; it's a matter of distance with them.  Okay, the qualifying factor is being fired at?  So we go to our support guys in camp that get rocketed or mortared in base - does that count?  Ahhh....maybe not; okay, you have to do both!  What does this mean for a convoy that is struck by an IED and simply blasts some spec fire back at potential triggerguy locations?  Does this count?

It gets to the point where the nuts and bolts lead to the original intent is lost, and in attempting to please everybody, they please nobody.  If this is the case, is it really worth it?


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wonder how many young soldiers over the ages/centuries/decades have made the same comments?



Sure, I seem to recall mustard gas setting a precedent etc etc

Don't think I'd be anteing up to volunteer to reinact those incidents.

VOLUNTEERS people -- each and every one of us. Remembering _that_ is also very healthy.

There's also nothing wrong with a CAB ... as long as those who earn it still respect the contributions of a fellow 031 (for example) who happened to be slotted into a KAF posn on that CFTPO vice an outside the wire one. The problem begins when those who wear these things believe that those who don't wear them, don't wear them because they are:



> 1. Afraid of change.  2. Afraid they don't qualify. 3. Know they will never qualify.



Because those simply aren't the facts. YOU could have just as easily found yourself tasked into one of those 031 inside the wire posns. Best to always remember that.




> A CAB will differentiate being there from having fought there.


----------



## Infanteer

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Really?  I'm sure WWII or Korean War vets would disagree.  Flanking fire, ambush, support by fire, booby trap (or IED, in today's buzzword) - nothing really new here.
> 
> ...and this is where the trouble of definition comes about (and my original question arises).  Is the qualifying factor firing at a hostile force?  Does the artillery count?  There guns happen to be bigger than the infantry's, but they are doing essentially the same thing; it's a matter of distance with them.  Okay, the qualifying factor is being fired at?  So we go to our support guys in camp that get rocketed or mortared in base - does that count?  Ahhh....maybe not; okay, you have to do both!  What does this mean for a convoy that is struck by an IED and simply blasts some spec fire back at potential triggerguy locations?  Does this count?
> 
> It gets to the point where the nuts and bolts lead to the original intent is lost, and in attempting to please everybody, they please nobody.  If this is the case, is it really worth it?





			
				PB said:
			
		

> Good points, kinda answered your own question.



Yes, and the answer seems to come in the form of the (rhetorical) question above.



> I'm sure you have experience on other tours, but once you ride a wave in this sandbox, even more so for your trade, I think you'll be off this fence.



I doubt it, but I guess we can wait for that time.  However, I've spoken with many who do qualify and feel the same way I do, so I don't think my opinions can be written off as those of one who hasn't seen the elephant....


----------



## PB

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> There's also nothing wrong with a CAB ... as long as those who earn it still respect the contributions of a fellow 031 (for example) who happened to be slotted into a KAF posn on that CFTPO vice an outside the wire one. The problem begins when those who wear these things believe that those who don't wear them, don't wear them because they are:
> 
> Because those simply aren't the facts. YOU could have just as easily found yourself tasked into one of those 031 inside the wire posns. Best to always remember that.


Since you say there's nothing wrong with a CAB, then those three points ( 1. Do not qualify...etc) would not apply to you. There are however, some narrow minded viewpoints  noticeable in other threads, that these points would apply to. I have all full respect for anyone wearing the uniform, even more for those heading overseas. Inside the wire support is very important, we could not do outside jobs without it, but there is difference in living conditions and threat level. 
I don't see a big problem with this at all. I see fighting men getting a little bit of tin to recognize the conflict they were in. I also seen a few convoys heading out, shorthanded, being filled by whoever wanted to help. RCMP Dudes in the PRT even jumped on as security for some QRF jobs. So if you are over there, no matter what CFTPO you are filling, you could end up in a fight. And before you ask, yes, I think RCMP who get in a TIC should get a CAB as well....Good Debate. Cheers, PB


----------



## PB

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I doubt it, but I guess we can wait for that time.  However, I've spoken with many who do qualify and feel the same way I do, so I don't think my opinions can be written off as those of one who hasn't seen the elephant....


 I'm not writing off your opinions, just think they may change down the road (maybe highway #4). If not, that okay to. Cheers, PB.


----------



## aesop081

ahhhhh

maybe one day, russian subs will return and i can sink one and get me a CAB

 ;D


----------



## armyvern

PB said:
			
		

> Since you say there's nothing wrong with a CAB, then those three points ( 1. Do not qualify...etc) would not apply to you. There are however, some narrow minded viewpoints  noticeable in other threads, that these points would apply to. I have all full respect for anyone wearing the uniform, even more for those heading overseas. Inside the wire support is very important, we could not do outside jobs without it, but there is difference in living conditions and threat level.
> I don't see a big problem with this at all. I see fighting men getting a little bit of tin to recognize the conflict they were in. I also seen a few convoys heading out, shorthanded, being filled by whoever wanted to help. RCMP Dudes in the PRT even jumped on as security for some QRF jobs. So if you are over there, no matter what CFTPO you are filling, you could end up in a fight. And before you ask, yes, I think RCMP who get in a TIC should get a CAB as well....Good Debate. Cheers, PB



Since we're debating ...

I said there's nothing wrong with the CAB, _provided_ that those who receive them ... understand that those who don't necessarily receive them --- are NOT lesser soldiers because of that ... and that seeing someone without a CAB (even a support trade, even a 031 for example) does not = "they don't have what it takes/they don't have enough guts/etc" because that simply is NOT the case. IF those pers who may receive them believe that these badges distinguish them somehow from pers who are "unworthy" (and that WAS the gist many pers got out of the earlier "3" points regarding who "disagrees" with the CAB ... with the "they never will qualify" ) --- then we have a problem. Because that would signify those pers DO NOT understand how CFTPO posns and deployment tasks work.

It's not that pers are unworthy at all --- it's just that they happened to be slotted into an inside the wire posn ... just as easily as one deemed "worthy" could have been slotted inside the wire and perhaps never have earned one either -- if only the posn numbers had been reversed between the two soldiers. It's an "odds" thing.


----------



## PhilB

Vern, I agree that attitude is key. I dont think it is on to have an attitude of "worthiness" or "unworthiness" . Attitude is something that cant really be controlled and I dont think having or not having a certain badge will drive attitude. If someone has a bad attitude it will be bad, or vice versa.

As far as qualifying, again, the crux of the problem. I think the main criteria should be effective enemy fire. IMHO and that has been subjected to enemy rocket fire at KAF will agree that it is far from being effective fire (Before anyone brings up the handful of Canadians that have been injured in rocket attacks at KAF there is a large difference between rockets being indiscriminately lobbed into a massive camp with the odd lucky hit, and directed, targeted fire). This definition of "effective fire" would mean that basically anyone outside the wire involved in an incident would qualify. Guys on convoys getting IED'd or ambushed, artillery guys that face the same threat, or infantry guys actively engaging the enemy with small arms fire. I dont know, that seems to make sense to me, anyone else have ideas?


----------



## Sig_Des

PhilB said:
			
		

> Vern, I agree that attitude is key. I dont think it is on to have an attitude of "worthiness" or "unworthiness" . Attitude is something that cant really be controlled and I dont think having or not having a certain badge will drive attitude. If someone has a bad attitude it will be bad, or vice versa.



There will be some arrogance from some people who have a badge and use it to quantify arguments. We ALL know of someone who would.

From another thread on the matter, I'll quote myself:



> I think that just like medals, these patches will have to be taken with a grain of salt when you see them on a members tunic.
> 
> On one side, if this thing goes on, you'll see an expansion of the "pointy end vs. WOGs" mentality. On the other side of the spectrum, you'll have people on a TAV, trying to get in a convoy, hoping to qualify. Dumb, but we all know it'll happen.
> 
> In the end, it's just more things to sew onto your uniform.
> 
> *If you've been out the wire, and fought, then you know you've fought. You don't need a patch to give you the confidence that comes with that*.



http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/54242/post-491870.html#msg491870

If we do go down this route, I really do hope the criteria is strict.

Yeah, so I was rocketed numerous times at KAF. If I get a box with a shiny badge in it because of that...Well, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to wear it.


----------



## PB

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> Since we're debating ...
> 
> I said there's nothing wrong with the CAB, _provided_ that those who receive them ... understand that those who don't necessarily receive them --- are NOT lesser soldiers because of that ... and that seeing someone without a CAB (even a support trade, even a 031 for example) does not = "they don't have what it takes/they don't have enough guts/etc" because that simply is NOT the case. IF those pers who may receive them believe that these badges distinguish them somehow from pers who are "unworthy" (and that WAS the gist many pers got out of the earlier "3" points regarding who "disagrees" with the CAB ... with the "they never will qualify" ) --- then we have a problem. Because that would signify those pers DO NOT understand how CFTPO posns and deployment tasks work.
> 
> It's not that pers are unworthy at all --- it's just that they happened to be slotted into an inside the wire posn ... just as easily as one deemed "worthy" could have been slotted inside the wire and perhaps never have earned one either -- if only the posn numbers had been reversed between the two soldiers. It's an "odds" thing.


ArmyVern 
I would love to debate this with you further, but unfortunately, it looks like we agree. It's a good idea, hope it works out, hope it is not abused, and hope there are not guys or gals acting childish and rubbing it in others' faces. Just to add, I don't think there will be many childish troops rubbing it in other faces, most kids going on this tour come back a little older and wiser. Cheers, PB.


----------



## armyvern

PB said:
			
		

> ArmyVern
> I would love to debate this with you further, but unfortunately, it looks like we agree. It's a good idea, hope it works out, hope it is not abused, and hope there are not guys or gals acting childish and rubbing it in others' faces. Just to add, I don't think there will be many childish troops rubbing it in other faces, most kids going on this tour come back a little older and wiser. Cheers, PB.



I sincerely hope that you're correct in that assessment.


----------



## PhilB

I think all of this is somewhat a moot point. My understanding is that the CAB is already a done deal? Please, someone correct me if I am wrong. Does anyone have any pictures, or pdf's of what it is supposed to look like?


----------



## armyvern

PhilB said:
			
		

> I think all of this is somewhat a moot point. My understanding is that the CAB is already a done deal? ...



Even if the CAB is "a done deal" ... 

I'd argue that hoping that those who receive them act & speak professionally, and be non-judgemental of "non-CAB" fellow soldiers is _*hardly*_ a moot point.


----------



## PhilB

Sorry, I was unclear. I didnt mean your post in particular was a moot point, more that the whole debate about whether the badge was a good idea or not was a moot point.


----------



## aesop081

PhilB said:
			
		

> Sorry, I was unclear. I didnt mean your post in particular was a moot point, more that the whole debate about whether the badge was a good idea or not was a moot point.



Wether the CAB will exist or not is a moot point. Wether it is a good idea or not is still up for debate. Its not because something exists that its automaticaly a good idea. If that was the case, you can all stop bitching about the Tac Vest, Sperwer, the CH-146 and CTS.


----------



## Roy Harding

I worked fairly closely with the 101st S1 in '02.  As part of my job, I attended the Bde S1 meetings which were held on a regularly scheduled basis (I don't recall the frequency - once a week?  twice a week? - doesn't matter).  I was sent after the BG Adjt attended the first one - they were one - two hour meetings, mostly filled with minutiae regarding the accurate reporting of "who was in the box" so that proper records were maintained regarding who was entitled to the US CIB.  A worthy staff duty, of course - but of no concern to us Canadians (but there were _occasional_ snippets of information passed on there that WERE of concern to Canadians - thus _someone_ from the Canadian S1 shop had to attend, thus my attendance - my Adjt was no fool).

What struck me was the amount of staff work (reports and returns, coordination and consolidation of those reports and returns for onward transmission to Div.  Questioning of those consolidations from Div.  Rockets from Bde to Unit in order to answer those questions.  Amended reports and returns submitted to Bde - onward transmission of amended consolidated reports to Div - ad nauseum) which went into our US ally's efforts to ensure that the CIB was awarded to everyone who deserved it, and NOT to those who didn't.

Don't get me wrong - staff work is essential, and needs to be accurate.  I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this issue - but has anyone considered the added Clerk that's going to be required for every BG just to keep the stats straight?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Why not just get the medics to hand them out at the RAP (or equivalent) based on a doctor's professional assessment of the injury, and as noted in the casualty's medical records? Oops, I've probably just proposed eliminating a whole floor of staff in some HQ somewhere ... sorry.


----------



## Roy Harding

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why not just get the medics to hand them out at the RAP (or equivalent) based on a doctor's professional assessment of the injury, and as noted in the casualty's medical records? Oops, I've probably just proposed eliminating a whole floor of staff in some HQ somewhere ... sorry.



I agree with you.

I'm just relaying what I saw while working with the Rakkasans.


----------



## Kilroy

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Definitely something that must be looked at closely.  I mean their hearts are in the right place, but we must closely look at the method of awarding.  Maybe the moving of the stripe to a position and status of a medal.
> 
> Unfortunately, although I am a huge defender of the soldier that suffers OSI, I do not believe it deserves a medal of recognition.  Recognition of treatment is what is needed.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



This is a weird one. On one hand, and OSI is the same as a physichal wound, it is just a wound to the brain, and can't be seen. It deserves ever bit the same recognition as someone who was shot, or has lost a body part.

However..........

I myself have been diagnosed with PTSD, adn I also agree that having a medal on my chest and having to tell everyone why I have it would not in anyway at all help treat my condition. 

Dang, if this ain't the ultimate catch -22 situation!!


----------



## the 48th regulator

Kilroy said:
			
		

> This is a weird one. On one hand, and OSI is the same as a physichal wound, it is just a wound to the brain, and can't be seen. It deserves ever bit the same recognition as someone who was shot, or has lost a body part.
> 
> However..........
> 
> I myself have been diagnosed with PTSD, adn I also agree that having a medal on my chest and having to tell everyone why I have it would not in anyway at all help treat my condition.
> 
> Dang, if this ain't the ultimate catch -22 situation!!



I hear you brother,

I too have been diagnosed with PTSD, resulting from when I was shot multiple time on tour back in 1994.

However, as I am the greatest defender of the wounded, Physically and Mentally, it is very hard to distinguish the cause.

It is the ultimate catch 22.  

dileas

tess


----------



## Dirty Patricia

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I've seen the draft presentation on the medal; it's an ugly triangle with arrows and it comes in three fruity-flavours.



The original design has been revised.  It is now a CF tri-service centre, topped with a crown, maple leafs pointing out from the sides and a scroll along the bottom with "combat".


----------



## PhilB

Is it a cloth badge or a metal pin on thing? Do you have any pics?


----------



## geo

PhilB
as has been said.... it's not out yet.
Some people have seen one medel, others have seen another model.  It it the final draft OR will there be more changes before it goes into production... who knows?

NO picture will be released before it is officially unveiled by the CDS.

oh yeah.... Pin!


----------



## dapaterson

geo said:
			
		

> NO picture will be released before it is officially unveiled by the CDS.



Ahem.  Her Excellency the Governor General will be the authority for any such decoration should it be authorized.  The GG will unveil; the CDS will be hovering in the background.


----------



## geo

Whups.... correct as always DAP.
(though I am certain that the CDS will probably lend a hand to carry it over to Rideau Hall)


----------



## Infanteer

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> The original design has been revised.  It is now a CF tri-service centre, topped with a crown, maple leafs pointing out from the sides and a scroll along the bottom with "combat".



Ugg...doesn't sound much better....


----------



## Gunner

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ahem.  Her Excellency the Governor General will be the authority for any such decoration should it be authorized.  The GG will unveil; the CDS will be hovering in the background.



Gents, it's a badge that will be handed out based on a set of criteria given to a unit CO.  It is NOT a formal "honour and award", any more so than a set of jump wings or a trade qualification badge is.  If the GG is involved at the unveiling it would be to acknowledge the perceived importance of its introduction to the military.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Gunner said:
			
		

> Gents, it's a badge that will be handed out based on a set of criteria given to a unit CO.  It is NOT a formal "honour and award", any more so than a set of jump wings or a trade qualification badge is.  If the GG is involved at the unveiling it would be to acknowledge the perceived importance of its introduction to the military.
> 
> My 2 cents.



Absolutely correct, it is a badge and as such will be administered through the chain of command. DHH not DH&R will be the directorate responsible for it I believe.


----------



## Gunner

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Absolutely correct, it is a badge and as such will be administered through the chain of command. DHH not DH&R will be the directorate responsible for it I believe.



Sorry, my comments were made in reference to the CAB.  The "sacrifice medal" is another issue entirely and I think DAPatterson was actually posting in response to it.  The Comd/unit CO currently presents the wound stripe to a soldier in theatre.  I'm not sure if this will change once it transitions to a medal.


----------



## dapaterson

Yes, this thread is really two topics now:  the CAB and the Purple Heart Sacrifice Medal.  Perhaps one of the diligent, hard-working, under-appreciated  mods could work a split?


----------



## Kilroy

Okay, what happens if they decide OSI's qualify. How can this be awarded in theatre when an OSI is not usually recognized until the soldier has returned back to Canada? What would it qualify for, and how would they go about giving it? My big concern is, that they are giving a stripe / award / medal / whatever it is to be to someone and saying "Here is your award for having an OSI. Hope you get better. Anyone have ANY idea on how this delicate matter will be handed??


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

Since no one here is on the decision-making committee or tasked with writing up criteria for it, and if they were would have the good sense not to breach confidentiality, how do you expect anyone to reasonably answer your question?

Anything more along this line would be personal opinion, wild conjecture and most of all inaccurate.

Let's sum up this line of speculation.

*The Army.ca staff*


----------



## Kilroy

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Since no one here is on the decision-making committee or tasked with writing up criteria for it, and if they were would have the good sense not to breach confidentiality, how do you expect anyone to reasonably answer your question?
> 
> Anything more along this line would be personal opinion, wild conjecture and most of all inaccurate.
> 
> Let's sum up this line of speculation.
> 
> *The Army.ca staff*



No one here is on the decision making committee for this award either, but some have seen version of the "award, and we have a whole thread on it based on what some people have heard. I was just wondering the same. Has anyone heard how an OSI would be handled??


----------



## Michael OLeary

Kilroy said:
			
		

> Anyone have ANY idea on how this delicate matter will be handed??



Probably not like this:



			
				Kilroy said:
			
		

> "Here is your award for having an OSI. Hope you get better.


----------



## aesop081

Kilroy said:
			
		

> "Here is your award for having an OSI. Hope you get better.



What would you like them to say ?

"i know we have provided you with treatment for you OSI but just to be on the safe side we will award you this badge but dance around the reason why you are getting it "


----------



## RHFC_piper

Just touching on the topic of how it gets awarded, and who is eligible (for the wound medal, that is):

If this thing is going to take the place of the wound stripe, it stands to reason that it would be awarded under the same circumstances... Just seems logical to me, but what do I know.

And if thats the case, and to remove all doubt; here's a link to the *Wound stripes FAQ *



> *What kind of injury merits a wound stripe?*
> A wound stripe recognizes an injury directly attributable to hostile action, received in honourable circumstances in an operational area, and requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid.





> *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.




Now... just by this information; it doesn't state anywhere that OSI's are not included... It does specifically state "an injury requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid" and  "received in SDA/SDO"... which is in line with OSI's...   But, I always figured wound stripes were issued for physical wounds.  Not to discount OSI's, but I think there is a difference.  Most people I know with physical injuries from tour have very little reason to not wear their wound stripe, but I doubt soldiers affected by OSI's would be so willing... but that's just my thoughts on it.

Either way, if this medal is to replace the wound stripe (or augment it), would it not stand to reason that it follows roughly the same guide lines?

Just my $0.02


----------



## Reccesoldier

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> OK, so tell me.  Who has seen it?  What does it look like?  Engraving?  Ribbon Colours?  Bar on the ribbon?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know.



I have, but I'm not telling... Honours in confidence and all that.  :blotto:


----------



## Gunner98

Gunner said:
			
		

> Sorry, my comments were made in reference to the CAB.  The "sacrifice medal" is another issue entirely and I think DAPatterson was actually posting in response to it.  The Comd/unit CO currently presents the wound stripe to a soldier in theatre.  I'm not sure if this will change once it transitions to a medal.



There is some precedence from the Wound Stripe is:

If the CO decides not to award it in theatre, it is unlikely that a paper trail is started that documents this decision.  When a soldier is later diagnosed with physical injury (or perhaps an OSI) and decides to redress, it may be too late.  Some (CSS) COs place letters/Memos on all soldiers' files (those not in direct combat role) who are involved in specific incidents that may result, in the future, require follow-up. 

From recent experience it would be necessary for the individual to convince the CO from the time of the incident to reverse his decision.   It would be up to the individual to compile the supporting documents, if he chooses to otherwise redress.  IMHO, the Unit CO that the soldier is serving with will not have the knowledge or authority to retroactively revisit the situation.


----------



## McG

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why not just get the medics to hand them out at the RAP (or equivalent) based on a doctor's professional assessment of the injury, and as noted in the casualty's medical records? Oops, I've probably just proposed eliminating a whole floor of staff in some HQ somewhere ... sorry.


The comments on a dedicated staff being required to administer an award were for the combat badge & not for wound stripes (or a related medal).  I know, it is difficult to keep track of what is going on in this thread when posts keep switching between wound stripes vs wound medals and combat badges (and not stating which item they are commenting on either).


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

ok lets get on to the idea of the sacrifice medal, we already have an award for wounds recieved in combat, it's called the wound stripe, its worn on the sleeve of the CF Tunic to recognize these acts.  and yes the US has a different honours system,  read DIFFERENT, we are creating awards with the same (or pretty d@#$ close) so is it a matter of continiueing with a Canadian home grown honours system or lets just adopt another nations, like the US, we can hand out ribbons for successful course completion, not medals mind you but ribbons alone. or we can stick to the ones we have and develop in our own, modeled after nobody system. With Canadian medals, modeled after Canadian Ideals. It's not like I'm saying let's forget new medals and awards, but lets be distinct from other nations about it.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> With Canadian medals, modeled after Canadian Ideals. It's not like I'm saying let's forget new medals and awards, but lets be distinct from other nations about it.



Uhm,


Not to burst your bubble, but our system is not based on Canadian Ideals.

Look at the uproar when we tried to distance ourselves from the V.C.

There is absolutely nothing "Canadian" about our awards system, other than the engraved name on the awards.

dileas

tess


----------



## geo

Artienewbie,... you might not have bothered reading the 19 previous pages of this thread but, your argument has already been brought up.  The wound stripe is good - while you are still in uniform.  What happens to that wound stripe once you retire or are invalidated out of the CF?  Would you permanently mount one on your business suit or mufti?  OR would you rather that it be added to your "rack" so that, for suitable occasions, you could wear it in full public view?


----------



## Greymatters

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> There is absolutely nothing "Canadian" about our awards system, other than the engraved name on the awards.



Too true!  Up to 1990 anyway, after that it seems to be a muddle between American and British systems...


----------



## armyvern

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Too true!  Up to 1990 anyway, after that it seems to be a muddle between American and British systems...



Isn't muddled up & confused between US/British typicly Canadian regarding our 'identity' though?? I'd think that's what makes the Awards System distinctly Canadian.  >


----------



## Reccesoldier

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> There is absolutely nothing "Canadian" about our awards system, other than the engraved name on the awards.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Right, just as there is nothing Canadian about our sovereign the Queen of Canada, her representative in Canada, the Governor General, the CDS, our Parliament, the PCO or any of the other members of the  Honours committee or legislative body of this nation which decides (completely independent of the UK or the USA) what honours will or will not be brought into the Canadian Honours System, because we all know that because Canada was once a Colony of England and so close geographically to the USA that it is absolutely impossible that we are ever going to be responsible or have a unique thought of our own.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Right, just as there is nothing Canadian about our sovereign the Queen of Canada, her representative in Canada, the Governor General, the CDS, our Parliament, the PCO or any of the other members of the  Honours committee or legislative body of this nation which decides (completely independent of the UK or the USA) what honours will or will not be brought into the Canadian Honours System, because we all know that because Canada was once a Colony of England and so close geographically to the USA that it is absolutely impossible that we are ever going to be responsible or have a unique thought of our own.



What distinguishes us from other Countires, with regards to the awards system then?

Oh and, who has final approval on the design and designation of a medal.

dileas

tess


----------



## Gunner

> What distinguishes us from other Countires, with regards to the awards system then?



It's a Canadian system based on our history and heritage.



> Oh and, who has final approval on the design and designation of a medal.



The Queen of Canada you Republican bastard!


----------



## the 48th regulator

Gunner said:
			
		

> It's a Canadian system based on our history and heritage.



A British one.



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> The Queen of Canada you Republican *******!



Aha, not the Prime Minister, our politically elected leader.

God save the Queen, we mean it Man!  :blotto:

Up the CRA!!

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Up the CRA!!



Mother of Gawd ... I wonder if the GG would approve.


----------



## Reccesoldier

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What distinguishes us from other Countires, with regards to the awards system then?



Have you been studying the posts of georgeharper, Majstorovic and Harbinger in the "Afghan Fact or Fiction thread" to learn how segregate actions and logic from history? :-*  What would you suggest that we as a nation shouldn't use assembly lines because Henry Ford perfected them or we should have reduced ourselves to stone age technology in 1867 when we became a sovereign nation?  What nonsense!



> Oh and, who has final approval on the design and designation of a medal.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



HM Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Canada.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Have you been studying the posts of georgeharper, Majstorovic and Harbinger in the "Afghan Fact or Fiction thread" to learn how segregate actions and logic from history? :-*  What would you suggest that we as a nation shouldn't use assembly lines because Henry Ford perfected them or we should have reduced ourselves to stone age technology in 1867 when we became a sovereign nation?  What nonsense!
> 
> HM Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Canada.



You cannot call our system, distinctly Canadian, it is not.

It is Canadian for the fact the awards are issued to mainly Canadians, that is where the distinction stops.  When we still await HM Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Canada to approve the medals, there is nothing distinct, other than we are still part of Britannia.

Until the whole system is overhauled, we keep our heritage, revamp the decision making process, and rid our the alignment with British Medals (i.e. the V.C) we cannot pontificate the fact of our apparent Canadian individuality on the Global scheme of awards systems.

We can beat our chest and call ourselves Canadian, while blessing our Queens long life, but in the end, our system is NOT "Canadian".

I am not anti monarchist, however, in the theme of this thread we can not lie and muddy the waters of fact.

dileas

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

I'll just point out that our current system (the "final approval" aside - even that is _de facto_ in the hands of the Governor General in accordance with the current Letters Patent) is completely unconnected with that of the UK.  We cannot be awarded (except as a foreign decoration), British valour and campaign medals and have a distinctly Canadian award in place for all endeavours and at all levels.

Even the VC is a _Canadian_ VC, with no connection (aside from the name) to the UK version, which, admittedly, it perpetuates historically.  The medal is superficially the same, but the motto is in Latin.  The Australians also have an Australian VC, with much the same intent.

We have not had a "British" honours system for many, many years and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Reccesoldier

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> You cannot call our system, distinctly Canadian, it is not.
> 
> It is Canadian for the fact the awards are issued to mainly Canadians, that is where the distinction stops.  When we still await HM Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Canada to approve the medals, there is nothing distinct, other than we are still part of Britannia.
> 
> Until the whole system is overhauled, we keep our heritage, revamp the decision making process, and rid our the alignment with British Medals (i.e. the V.C) we cannot pontificate the fact of our apparent Canadian individuality on the Global scheme of awards systems.
> 
> We can beat our chest and call ourselves Canadian, while blessing our Queens long life, but in the end, our system is NOT "Canadian".
> 
> I am not anti monarchist, however, in the theme of this thread we can not lie and muddy the waters of fact.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I am not lying.  Your assertion that just because our honours system is based on the one we inherited from the UK it is not Canadian is the lie.  There is no CD, SSM, CPSM in the British Honours system, these medals are Canadian, they were devised, designed, legislated by and for the Canadian Forces.  We can pick fly crap out of pepper on this all day but the system is Canadian, manned by Canadians and legislated under Canadian Law.  You be the judge.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Even the VC is a _Canadian_ VC, with no connection (aside from the name) to the UK version, which, admittedly, it perpetuates historically.  The medal is superficially the same, but the motto is in Latin.  The Australians also have an Australian VC, with much the same intent.
> 
> We have not had a "British" honours system for many, many years and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.



No,  It is  deceitful to imagine that becasue it has the words Canadian stamped on it, that it is Canadian.  The VC is A British award, that we and Australia have adopted to a tee.

It is not Canadian.

The Cross of Valour on the other hand is;

dileas

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

So, because a medal has the same name and appearance, it must be British, despite the fact that the UK has nothing - zero - to do with the criteria for the award or for the selection of those nominated for it?  Or the fact that the decoration was in limbo for over 20 years and was only added - as a Canadian award - to the system after a ground-roots campaign to allow for historical perpetuation?

Perhaps we should replace cap badges and titles of certain Reserve regiments simply because they look the same...and have the same name.   >


----------



## the 48th regulator

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> So, because a medal has the same name and appearance, it must be British, despite the fact that the UK has nothing - zero - to do with the criteria for the award or for the selection of those nominated for it?  Or the fact that the decoration was in limbo for over 20 years and was only added - as a Canadian award - to the system after a ground-roots campaign to allow for historical perpetuation?
> 
> Perhaps we should replace cap badges and titles of certain Reserve regiments simply because they look the same...and have the same name.   >




Teddy,

The fact that people were posting with disdain in adopting a new type of medal, because it made us too American, and claiming our system is distinctly Canadian was why I began to be critical.

Bottom line is all the examples given by you, or Recce soldier derive from Britain.  Full stop.

An adoption of a Wounded Medal, or a Combat badge, would indeed make our system "Canadian".

Until we do that, we can still lie to ourselves and say "oh the Canadian V.C is Canadian not British".  What is the history of this medal then, and why is it distinctly ours.  I am saying not that we should deny our heritage, but recognize it for what it is. But to stand here and say it is completely our own and no one else’s is actually disingenuous.

As for the cap badges you may have a point.  Look at our regular force, we did get rid anything that smacked of British thought, with regards to the infantry....

dileas

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

But _none_ of our current gongs, VC aside, are even remotely connected to the UK.  I'm failing to see your point.

However, my point is that we are adopting a US mindset - partially because of American-informed public pressure - on many, many things military and I don't agree that this is always a good thing.  I've pointed out examples earlier where we've leaned towards the American example, precisely because this is what people - including soldiers - know.  

You cannot tell me that civilian agitation for a "Canadian Purple Heart" (_"What? Our soldiers don't get a medal for being wounded?  It's a travesty!"_) or a Canadian version of the CIB don't stem almost entirely by wanting to follow the US example and US tradition.  I would argue that because US tradition is the only thing the general public (and, alas, some of our soldiers) knows, it is the only thing deemed worthy. To wit:  we'd better have an equivalent, or we're doing our soldiers a disservice otherwise.  I don't buy it for one second.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> But _none_ of our current gongs, VC aside, are even remotely connected to the UK.  I'm failing to see your point.
> 
> However, my point is that we are adopting a US mindset - partially because of American-informed public pressure - on many, many things military and I don't agree that this is always a good thing.  I've pointed out examples earlier where we've leaned towards the American example, precisely because this is what people - including soldiers - know.
> 
> You cannot tell me that civilian agitation for a "Canadian Purple Heart" (_"What? Our soldiers don't get a medal for being wounded?  It's a travesty!"_) or a Canadian version of the CIB don't stem almost entirely by wanting to follow the US example and US tradition.  I would argue that because US tradition is the only thing the general public (and, alas, some of our soldiers) knows, it is the only thing deemed worthy. To wit:  we'd better have an equivalent, or we're doing our soldiers a disservice otherwise.  I don't buy it for one second.



Well then Teddy you have me beat on two fronts.

If none of our modern gongs are derivatives of a British medal, then I stand corrected.

As for the American slant, again you have me there.  So we have created medals and badges similar in line to the Americans.  We have tried to make them distinctly Canadian (ie it is not the Canadian Purple heart).

So if we leave our system as is, we are British Canadian, if we go forward and adopt new ideas we are too close to Americans.

dileas

tess


----------



## dapaterson

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Aha, not the Prime Minister, our politically elected leader.



Tess:

The PM is not an elected leader.  I never voted for the man - only people in one riding do so.  He is - get this - appointed by the GG as the individual able to form a government (Google King / Byng for a little history).


----------



## the 48th regulator

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Tess:
> 
> The PM is not an elected leader.  I never voted for the man - only people in one riding do so.  He is - get this - appointed by the GG as the individual able to form a government (Google King / Byng for a little history).



So therefore we are still ruled by the Queen.

Disticntly Canadian.

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary

For anyone wanting to learn more about Canadian honours, I highly recommend:

The Canadian Honours System


----------



## Greymatters

ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> Isn't muddled up & confused between US/British typicly Canadian regarding our 'identity' though?? I'd think that's what makes the Awards System distinctly Canadian.  >



Hmmm.. Ive made enough bad posts for one day, so hopefully no one takes this the wrong way...

but, it would seem to me that we followed a historically British tradition towards the creation and sitribution of medals and ribbons up to that period.  But since then we seem to be establishing our own system that borrows from tradition and a bit from the US system.  It would be open to different opinions if this is a unique identity in itself...


----------



## the 48th regulator

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Hmmm.. Ive made enough bad posts for one day, so hopefully no one takes this the wrong way...
> 
> but, it would seem to me that we followed a historically British tradition towards the creation and sitribution of medals and ribbons up to that period.  But since then we seem to be establishing our own system that borrows from tradition and a bit from the US system.  It would be open to different opinions if this is a unique identity in itself...



Now that is the best summary that I was trying to say, with all of my marble mouthing.

Maybe that is what is Candian.  

dileas

tess


----------



## c4th

Greymatters said:
			
		

> ...a bit from the US system.  It would be open to different opinions if this is a unique identity in itself...



I'm curious as to which bit is from the US system?  Aside from the international medals, I see either uniquely Canadian or a British parallel in every honour and award on our chart.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I think the US concern relates to giving medals for being wounded e.g., the Purple Heart, apparent pressure to award multiple medals for a single tour, and the desire of some to award medals for reasons other than campaign service. 

If I'm wrong (which happens at least once per decade!) someone please straighten me out.


----------



## geo

OK D&B, meet ya out back of the Barracks at 22:00Hrs.
If I'm late, start without me!


----------



## Reccesoldier

I am unaware of any official pressure to award multiple medals for the same operation, as a matter of fact it is expressly forbidden in the Cdn Honours system.  

Having said that there have been cases in the past where missions have been re-rolled in mid tour and therefore some people have been eligible for more than one medal in a six month period but this is recognition for two operatioons or missions not for a single mission.

When some people see this happen they wonder why Joe Blow gets two gongs but what they fail to recognize is that the criteria for the medals is formulated independantly of any other mission.  In the case of UN or NATO missions Canada doesn't even have a voice in the criteria, only in accepting the medal into the Canadian Honours system and administering it on behalf of the originating organization once it is accepted.  The absolute WORST whining is done in these cases by those who did not qualify for one of the medals or the other.

As the CF medals distribution supervisor I personally denied a Korean War vet the CD because he was days short.  There are no if's, but's or or's.  Honours are regulated by orders in council and anyone that believes there is some secret cabal cherry picking entitlements for this Roto or that is deluded.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

that said, would the new sacrifice medal replace entirely the wound stripe, a canadian distinction that goes back as far as WW1


----------



## Reccesoldier

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> that said, would the new sacrifice medal replace entirely the wound stripe, a canadian distinction that goes back as far as WW1



That too would be decided by the Honours commission and spelled out in the OiC


----------



## geo

Artienewbie.... the wound stripe came out of the Brits' honours and awards prior to WW1 (Boers)... so, not entirely a Cdn distinction - just one we have continued to award.

The fact remains, once you have retired or are invalidated out of the CF, how do you display your wound stripe then?
Would you sew a wound stripe onto your civy suit jackets?  Wouldn't that be a little presumptuous of you if you did?

A wound decoration, worn alongside the CD would do just as well - displayed only on occasions when you chose / have been chosen for you.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

as per  ADM(HR-MIL) Instruction 03/03 at link http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/0303_admhrmil_e.asp wound stipes may continue to be worn on civillian clothing once retired.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> as per  ADM(HR-MIL) Instruction 03/03 at link http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/0303_admhrmil_e.asp wound stipes may continue to be worn on civillian clothing once retired.



Did you bother to read Geo's post??



> Would you sew a wound stripe onto your civy suit jackets?  Wouldn't that be a little presumptuous of you if you did?




I personally do not wear my Wound stripe, as I will not damage my Civvy Suits by sewing it on.  Plus I do not wish to advertise it weverytime I put a suit on.

dileas

tess


----------



## daftandbarmy

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Did you bother to read Geo's post??
> 
> 
> I personally do not wear my Wound stripe, as I will not damage my Civvy Suits by sewing it on.  Plus I do not wish to advertise it weverytime I put a suit on.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



The wound stripe was discussed heavily in the UK following the Falklands War. It was discarded for many reasons, not least of which they didn't feel it was a good idea to force injured soldiers to have to tell the story of how they were wounded, and where, again and again. Knowing many who have been wounded, some with very serious burns for example, not many of them wanted to talk much about it to strangers. 

They also wanted to avoid the hassle, experienced by the US, of deciding what types of wounds to award it for. Bullett? Shrapnel? PTSD? Falling off a truck just behind the FEBA?


----------



## Neill McKay

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> You cannot call our system, distinctly Canadian, it is not.
> 
> It is Canadian for the fact the awards are issued to mainly Canadians, that is where the distinction stops.  When we still await HM Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Canada to approve the medals, there is nothing distinct, other than we are still part of Britannia.
> 
> Until the whole system is overhauled, we keep our heritage, revamp the decision making process, and rid our the alignment with British Medals (i.e. the V.C) we cannot pontificate the fact of our apparent Canadian individuality on the Global scheme of awards systems.
> 
> We can beat our chest and call ourselves Canadian, while blessing our Queens long life, but in the end, our system is NOT "Canadian".



If by Canadian you mean it has to have been invented from the ground up in Canada, with no external influence of any kind, then we will probably never see such a system.  But it is possible to have a distinctly Canadian system that still reflects our heritage, wherever that may come from.  I would argue that we have that now.  The vast majority of our honours and awards were designed here; all of the decisions regarding them -- name, criteria for award, design, materials, everything -- are made by Canadian officials.

I'd argue that a historically pure Canadian system along the lines that you seem to be suggesting, with no external influence whatsoever, wouldn't even include circular medals hanging from one's chest by bits of ribbon -- after all, those weren't invented here.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> If by Canadian you mean it has to have been invented from the ground up in Canada, with on external influence, then we will probably never see such a system.  But it is possible to have a Canadian system that still reflects our heritage, wherever that may come from.  The vast majority of our honours and awards were designed here; all of the decisions regarding them -- name, criteria for award, design, materials, everything -- are made by Canadian officials.
> 
> I'd argue that a historically pure Canadian system along the lines that you seem to be suggesting, with no external influence whatsoever, wouldn't even include circular medals hanging from one's chest by bits of ribbon -- after all, those weren't invented here.



No No,

Don't read me wrong.

What I am trying to point out to the numerous people who claim that our system is distinctly Canadian, is that it is not.

We still follow a British system, and there is nothing wrong with that, unfortunately there is little that I regard as distinctly Canadian.

Teddy was guiding me in the Canadian way, and if you can do the same I will full agree that we do have a distinct Canadian awards system.

Until then, I am still on the fence, 

dileas

tess


----------



## Gunner98

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The wound stripe was discussed heavily in the UK following the Falklands War. It was discarded for many reasons, not least of which they didn't feel it was a good idea to force injured soldiers to have to tell the story of how they were wounded, and where, again and again. Knowing many who have been wounded, some with very serious burns for example, not many of them wanted to talk much about it to strangers.
> 
> They also wanted to avoid the hassle, experienced by the US, of deciding what types of wounds to award it for. Bullett? Shrapnel? PTSD? Falling off a truck just behind the FEBA?



I would not be so sure that the talk in the UK has ceased.  This site has several letters saying the same rationale as has been posted in this Topic:
http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk/ll/mail3.htm


----------



## Neill McKay

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> We still follow a British system, and there is nothing wrong with that, unfortunately there is little that I regard as distinctly Canadian.



I don't think I'm getting it then.  What in our system do you see as British?  (I'll grant that the VC might be a point for discussion, but apart from that?)


----------



## the 48th regulator

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I don't think I'm getting it then.  What in our system do you see as British?  (I'll grant that the VC might be a point for discussion, but apart from that?)



Okay,

I guess we shall play ping pong.  Correct me and show me what is not based on the Biritish system, in that any medal is not a direct dirivative of the British Medal it originates from.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group02

Here is a start...

dileas

tess


----------



## geo

The new awards only started to come on line post 1972.  Everything prior to that date had an old "imperial" connotation to the darned things.  

My Granddad ended up with a CMG, CStJ, DSO, etc, etc.ebgo.....  most all are old Imperial decorations presented to a Canadian officer for his service at the front...


----------



## 1feral1

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> No No,
> 
> Don't read me wrong.
> 
> What I am trying to point out to the numerous people who claim that our system is distinctly Canadian, is that it is not.
> 
> We still follow a British system, and there is nothing wrong with that, unfortunately there is little that I regard as distinctly Canadian.
> 
> Teddy was guiding me in the Canadian way, and if you can do the same I will full agree that we do have a distinct Canadian awards system.
> 
> Until then, I am still on the fence,
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Hi Tess,

I look at our system (Canada's) as being Canadian, but with many traditions, heritage and influence coming from our British roots (VC George's Cross etc). I hope that makes sense. Same as Australia. We have our own unique ones, yet there is British influence, even down to the ADFLSM, which is 15 yrs, not 12 like the CD. Bars come every 5 yrs thereafter, not 10.

Keeping with tradition, I am not in favour of the Sacrifice Medal, although I am supportive of any mode the government chooses. Wounded soldiers should be recognised, and with an option to wear/not wear this award if the soldier in question does not want to.

Secondly WRT the wound stripe and civvy attire. Would not a pin, a metal replica with the exact or miniture size and epoxy resin colour be suitable? Attaches in the same fashion as say a single medal ribbon, or Presidential Citation (Aussie ones that 3RAR wears, have pins and are worn on the breast, as opposed to 2PPCLI wearing them on the sleeve).

That way it would be an option to wear it or not, and would not damage clothing.

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Gunner98

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Secondly WRT the wound stripe and civvy attire. Would not a pin, a metal replica with the exact or miniture size and epoxy resin colour be suitable? Attaches in the same fashion as say a single medal ribbon, or Presidential Citation (Aussie ones that 3RAR wears, have pins and are worn on the breast, as opposed to 2PPCLI wearing them on the sleeve).



Since 2005 we have given CF soldiers the CF Service Pin to wear as part of the Departure with Dignity Program, a 'Purple Heart-type' lapel pin to along side it might be appropriate for wear in civilian clothes.


----------



## 1feral1

After my 18 yrs 11 months and 22 days of TI in the CF, I got a small gold coloured triservice lapel pin, which says 'service' under it. Got than pin months later, sent to Australia with my discharge certificate.

Is this the same pin??

As for the pin for the wound stripe, I wear more than one lapel pin.

Depending on the occasion, I wear RSL (Returned Soldier's League), RAS (Returned form Active Service) badge, RAEME Tie tack, and CF Service pin. When placed correctly, its not over done.

I still think teh pin is ok, adn we are never going to please anyone.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## geo

Wes,

The service pins given out with the release certificate come in 3 colours:  Bronze, Silver & Gold.  Ties in with CD & Clasps... so, what you have my friend is a Bronze service pin.


----------



## Greymatters

geo said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> The service pins given out with the release certificate come in 3 colours:  Bronze, Silver & Gold.  Ties in with CD & Clasps... so, what you have my friend is a Bronze service pin.



What part of 2005 did they come out in?  Didnt see any of those when I left...


----------



## Gunner98

The CF 75 Service pins were first formalized in 1986 in CFAO 18-23, but were emphasized as part of the Departure with Dignity Program formalized in Apr 2003 - CANFORGEN 052/03

Excerpt from CFAO 18-23 - The classification of the Service Pin awarded is determined by the status of the CD and clasps in receipt at the time of release.  The classifications are as follows:
     a.   retiring members in receipt of the CD -bronze pin.

     b.   retiring members in receipt of the first clasp to the CD -silver
          pin; and

     c.   retiring members in receipt of the second and subsequent clasps
          to the CD -gold pin.

If you were missed you could request one through the Chief of Military Personnel.


----------



## Neill McKay

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I guess we shall play ping pong.  Correct me and show me what is not based on the Biritish system, in that any medal is not a direct dirivative of the British Medal it originates from.
> 
> http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group02
> 
> Here is a start...



I'd have to know more about the British system to be able to give you a solid answer.  However, we did specifically get rid of most of the British decorations we used to award some years ago and invent many of our own.  That's the basis of my argument that we have a Canadian honours and awards system.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I'd have to know more about the British system to be able to give you a solid answer.  However, we did specifically get rid of most of the British decorations we used to award some years ago and invent many of our own.  That's the basis of my argument that we have a Canadian honours and awards system.



So what you are saying is that you do not know the British system, however you know for a fact that we did specifically get rid of most of the British decorations we used to award some years ago and invent many of our own. 







If that is the case, then I say yes we are distinct in our Medal Awards system, and I stand corrected.

I was hoping you could help in pointing out which ones are being awarded, that are distinctly Canadian.

dileas

tess


----------



## Blackadder1916

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I was hoping you could help in pointing out which ones are being awarded, that are distinctly Canadian.



This may assist you.

A-AD-200-000/AG-000 THE HONOURS, FLAGS AND HERITAGE STRUCTURE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES
CHAPTER 2 HONOURS TO INDIVIDUALS
SECTION 1 THE PERSONAL HONOURS SYSTEM


> HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
> 
> 3. At the beginning of the 20th Century, Canada was a self-governing dominion within the British Empire.  As the country evolved into an independent state, suggestions for the development of its own honours system grew. However, there was little early incentive to move beyond the simple policy decision that Canadian citizens could not accept knighthoods or similar British honours which granted aristocratic titles. British orders, decorations and medals continued to be used, including during wars, when Canadian contingents formed part of deployed British forces.
> 
> 4. Limited steps towards creating Canadian military honours were taken in the middle of this century, beginning with a few unique medals during the Second World War.  After the war, a common medal for military long service and exemplary conduct, the Canadian Forces Decoration, was created to replace its several predecessors. This was followed by a special campaign medal for service in the Korean Conflict, a uniquely Canadian version of the Commonwealth's award issued at the behest of our government.
> 
> 5. The watershed in the conversion to national honours occurred with the Centennial of Confederation in 1967. Initial awards created at that time were followed by a deliberate expansion of the Canadian honours system in 1972. Since then, practice,
> experience and study have led to continued growth in the national system for recognizing the merit and deeds of those who serve Canada.
> 
> 6. Accompanying this growth has been the development of commendations and like departmental awards emanating from the Chief of the Defence Staff to recognize activity beyond the demands of normal duty or of benefit to the CF or the country they serve.



As to which honours currently awarded that are uniquely Canadian vice those that perpetuate an “imperial” award, the following (somewhat edited) list from Appendix 1 to Annex A to the above reference may help in an explanation.  I’ve highlighted those that are now in the Canadian honours system and note with *** those which perpetuate a British honour.  A feature of the development of a Canadian  honours system was it's egalitarian nature, it doesn’t (usually) differentiate between officers and men, in contrast to the British system, e.g.  MC for officers, MM for men.  As British decorations for military valour were changed to remove differences for rank after the Canadian adoption of home-grown valour and bravery decorations, it might even be said they were following our lead.  There are also some similarities in the Australian development of their honours; they initially followed (to a degree) our example.



> 5. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1, 3 and 4, a person who, prior to June 1, 1972, was a member of a British order or the recipient of a British decoration or medal referred to in this section, may wear the insignia of the decoration or medal that the person is entitled to wear, the proper sequence being the following:
> 
> *Victoria Cross (VC)*  ***
> George Cross (GC)
> *Cross of Valour (CV)*
> Order of Merit (OM)
> Order of the Companions of Honour (CH)
> *Companion of the Order of Canada (CC)*
> *Officer of the Order of Canada (OC)*
> *Member of the Order of Canada (CM)*
> *Commander of the Order of Military Merit (CMM)*
> Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB)
> Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St.George (CMG)
> *Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO)* ***
> Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)
> Distinguished Service Order (DSO)
> *Officer of the Order of Military Merit (OMM)*
> *Lieutenant of the Royal Victoria Order (LVO)* ***
> Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)
> Imperial Service Order (ISO)
> *Member of the Order of Military Merit (MMM)*
> *Member of the Royal Victorian Order (MVO)*  ***
> Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE)
> Member of the Royal Red Cross (RRC)
> Distinguished Service Cross (DSC)
> Military Cross (MC)
> Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC)
> Air Force Cross (AFC)
> *Star of Military Valour (SMV)*
> *Star of Courage (SC)*
> *Meritorious Service Cross (MSC)*
> *Medal of Military Valour (MMV)*
> *Medal of Bravery (MB)*
> *Meritorious Service Medal (MSM)*
> Associate of the Royal Red Cross (ARRC)
> *The Most Venerable Order of St. John of Jerusalem (all grades)* ***
> Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM)
> Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (CGM)
> George Medal (GM)
> Distinguished Service Medal (DSM)
> Military Medal (MM)
> Distinguished Flying Medal (DFM)
> Air Force Medal (AFM)
> Queen's Gallantry Medal (QGM)
> *Royal Victorian Medal (RVM)*  ***
> British Empire Medal (BEM)
> 
> LONG SERVICE AND GOOD CONDUCT MEDALS
> Army Long Service and Good Conduct Medal
> Naval Long Service and Good Conduct Medal
> Air Force Long Service and Good Conduct Medal
> Volunteer Officer's Decoration (VD)
> Volunteer Long Service Medal
> Colonial Auxiliary Forces Officer's Decoration (VD)
> Colonial Auxiliary Forces Long Service Medal
> Efficiency Decoration (ED)
> Efficiency Medal
> Naval Volunteer Reserve Decoration (VRD)
> Naval Volunteer Reserve Long Service and Good Conduct Medal
> *Canadian Forces Decoration (CD)*   (CD consolidated the long service medals which were often similiar to or common among the Commonwealth and was unique in that it did not differentiate between officer and man)


----------



## the 48th regulator

Excellent,

Now that was exactly what I needed to educate me.

Of the 20 that are still issued, only 6 perpetuated from a British honor.

That being said, only 30% derive from the British system.

I will concede, that I was wrong, and Canada's awards system is truly distinct.

Sorry for the uneducated tangent I took the thread into.

dileas

tess


----------



## ModlrMike

New medal or not, if I get injured my wife will kill me.  ;D


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Of the 20 that are still issued, only 6 perpetuated from a British honor.



I should point out that it's even less than that, depending on how you look at it.  The Royal Victorian Order (in all its four guises) is awarded (according to the Gov Gen's website) for _personal_ service to the Soveriegn.  Hence, it is linked directly to the Royal Family, rather than the British crown...a small nuance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Victorian_Order

The Order of St John of Jerusalem is linked to that order and isn't a Canadian Crown award _per se_, although it is part of the honours system.  See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venerable_Order_of_Saint_John#The_Order_in_Canada


----------



## RHFC_piper

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> New medal or not, if I get injured my wife will kill me.  ;D




... if she doesn't kill you, she'll never let you live it down, that's for sure... And I'm speaking from experience.  >



No medal is worth that kinda trouble... especially if you come home after only 3 weeks... (I'll never hear the end of it.)


... I'm not bitter.  Just disappointed.


----------



## Gunner

Piper, better home after 3 weeks than the worst case scenario. 

Cheers


----------



## fraserdw

Wound stripe for wounds in non-combat operations, medal for wounds in combat operations.  Nothing like digging more worms out of the can!


----------



## armyvern

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Wound stripe for wounds in non-combat operations, medal for wounds in combat operations.  Nothing like digging more worms out of the can!



Your scenario may actually result in double recognition. Egads!!

IE, those earning the medal in your scenario (combat ops) ... would obviously have been involved in combat. Would they then have to take down the CAB -- a medal would make it obvious??

Worms crawling OUT of the can now.  :-X


----------



## eliminator

http://www.cdnabbrotherhood.ca/military-news/article-1333.html


----------



## RHFC_piper

eliminator said:
			
		

> http://www.cdnabbrotherhood.ca/military-news/article-1333.html





> we owe them more than an “atta-boy”, or a stripe on the sleeve which is meaningless especially when they arrive back in Canada and are told to remove the stripe from their uniform as some people were on the return from WWII.



Have recently wounded members been asked to remove their WS?  

I sure haven't... the CoC have been adamant about my having a wound stripe for every possible order of dress; DEU, Ceremonial Blues (both infantry and band) and even my WW2 reenactment BDUs.

Either way, interesting letter/post.


----------



## Michael OLeary

eliminator said:
			
		

> http://www.cdnabbrotherhood.ca/military-news/article-1333.html


Interesting that he says:



> a*n initiative that I began on March 21, 2007* to have a Canadian medal struck for Canadian Forces personnel who are wounded while engaged in operations with an armed enemy force or forces or engaged in peacekeeping duties or post peacekeeping mine removal operations sanctioned by the Canadian Government.



when this thread started 





> «  on: September 21, 2006, 18:53:09 »


 with this comment from a news article:


> A small group of Canadian veterans, moved by the steady stream of casualties returning from the battlefields of Afghanistan, is urging the Conservative government to formally recognize wounded soldiers with a medal.


and was likely based on even older pre-existing discussions and news.


----------



## geo

Interesting that they have chosen the colour "purple".  Why purple - other than the happenstance that our american brothers & sisters wound medal is the Purple heart?  Why not a "crimson"/ blood red?

The article brings up all of the points that have been brought up in the first 340 entries of this thread..... ho hum.

There are both pros and cons to having the "blighty medal"... let our masters decide on it.... but, for gods sake, make a decision


----------



## armyvern

geo said:
			
		

> ...  Why not a "crimson"/ blood red?
> ...


Perhaps crimson comes a little too close to the VC??


----------



## medaid

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Perhaps crimson comes a little too close to the VC??



Always thought the VC was more maroon?


----------



## armyvern

MedTech said:
			
		

> Always thought the VC was more maroon?



But crimson comes a lot closer to it in colour than "purple".


----------



## medaid

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But crimson comes a lot closer to it in colour than "purple".



Ah okay I see.


----------



## daftandbarmy

eliminator said:
			
		

> http://www.cdnabbrotherhood.ca/military-news/article-1333.html



Unfortunately, this prototype looks a little too much like the Iron Cross 2nd Class.


----------



## Dirty Patricia

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this prototype looks a little too much like the Iron Cross 2nd Class.


That prototype is ugly.  Having to wear that would be extra incentive not to get hit!


----------



## Michael OLeary

Is it a "prototype" (i.e., an officially created design), or is it just one guy's suggestion?


----------



## RHFC_piper

Funny...  In doing some web-snooping about "the Order of the Purple Cross" (which was the suggested name in the last posted article), I came across this Article.



> The Order of the Purple Cross of York, the highest honor of the College, is conferred upon those members of the College who have distinguished themselves by their service to humanity or to the Rite, The recipients are designated Associate Regents of the Sovereign College, and from their ranks are chosen the Regents or active members of that body..









It appears that "the Order of the Purple Cross" is already a Masonic Decoration, as I have found reference to this order on several Masonic web pages; reference goolge search

May not be a good idea to mess with the Free-Masons...  

Either way, I thought this thing was supposed to be a "Crimson Maple Leaf"?

Maple Leaf, Purple Cross... I'm going to have to agree with Geo on this;


			
				geo said:
			
		

> let our masters decide on it.... but, *for gods sake, make a decision*


----------



## geo

Hmmm... did a bit of looking.
Cdn Cross of Valour is crimson (looks nice though) 

Suggested purple cross looks a little bit like the Brit Military Cross (looks nice though)


----------



## Reccesoldier

I've seen the official proposal for this medal.  It most certainly does not look like that cross, nor was it designed, inspired, thought up or in any other way connected with some guy on the internet.

Let's get back to reality here folks.  Medals are designed with established heraldry in mind.  This country has a heraldry office (part of the GG's bailiwick) as well as DND Directorates of History and Heritage and the Directorate of Honours and Awards. Now who do you think would design medals for the Canadian Honours System?

Think about it...

I now return you to the rampant vacuous speculation already in progress.   :boring:


----------



## the 48th regulator

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I've seen the official proposal for this medal.  It most certainly does not look like that cross, nor was it designed, inspired, thought up or in any other way connected with some guy on the internet.
> 
> Let's get back to reality here folks.  Medals are designed with established heraldry in mind.  This country has a heraldry office (part of the GG's bailiwick) as well as DND Directorates of History and Heritage and the Directorate of Honours and Awards. Now who do you think would design medals for the Canadian Honours System?
> 
> Think about it...
> 
> I now return you to the rampant vacuous speculation already in progress.   :boring:




So what you are saying is that my suggestion was not even looked at then?

dileas

tess


----------



## Jarnhamar

The free masons again!

That would make a cool coin for members or army.ca to buy and support the website.


----------



## armyvern

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm... did a bit of looking.
> Cdn Cross of Valour is crimson (looks nice though)



I'm sure you understand my earlier post now then.


----------



## geo

Yes mistress


----------



## PO2FinClk

geo said:
			
		

> Suggested purple cross looks a little bit like the Brit Military Cross (looks nice though)


If the pruple is dark enough it would be identical to the SSM.


----------



## geo

in the end, why don't we have a set of "sight cross-hairs" for the medal?
This is after all, a Blighty medal.


----------



## Reccesoldier

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> If the pruple is dark enough it would be identical to the SSM.



Huh? http://www.gg.ca/honours/medals/hon04-ssm_e.asp

I had no idea you could make purple so dark that it looked like Red White and Black!


----------



## Starlight31

geo said:
			
		

> Suggested purple cross looks a little bit like the Brit Military Cross (looks nice though)



 Ouch!!!

    I have seen the ribbon, and can buy it.. It sure as heck did not look like that...  I must say.. For once, the ribbon looks very sharp.  Though, the medal I have not seen (I am in the business).  From what I have been told, It has been done right!! (One can only hope).  Then again, the same was said about a few other medals, and...... well, I just hope their is no more Tri Service badge placement in it... Lets become original!! CBA.... Tri Service with leafs..... GCS?? GSM?? Though the GSM is a really well done medal. IMHO!!

Now if it does not go through.... I might buy the ribbon anyway.. It is that sharp...   Now we just to hurry up and wait... We all have enough time in to know that game!!! ;D  lol

The ribbon isn't that far off though.... dump the white..... enough said!!!! lol..... I hope I attached it right!!!


----------



## Sub_Guy

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wmedal0829/BNStory/National

OTTAWA — The Governor-General has announced the creation of a new medal equivalent to the U.S. Purple Heart.

The Sacrifice Medal will be awarded to military personnel, members of allied forces or Canadian civilians working under the authority of the Canadian Forces who suffered wounds or death caused by hostile action on or after Oct. 7, 2001.

Governor-General Michaëlle Jean will preside over an inaugural presentation ceremony at Rideau Hall at a later date.

The silver circular medal is 36 millimetres across, has a claw at the top of it in the form of the Royal Crown, and is attached to a straight slotted bar under a red, black and white ribbon.

Until now, Canadian soldiers wounded in action received “wound stripes” to be worn on the forearm of their uniforms.


----------



## vonGarvin

Nice.  But where's my medal for Op HALO?


----------



## Loachman

I am rather underwhelmed by the bland name, and that this is being billed in the press as an "equivalent to the U.S. Purple Heart".

Once again, our distinctiveness has been Borged.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Ah well,

I guess I will be distinct in wearing my wound stripe.

And we beloved peacekeepers were such the darlings at one time......

dileas

tess


----------



## vonGarvin

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Ah well,
> 
> I guess I will be distinct in wearing my wound stripe.
> 
> *And we beloved peacekeepers were such the darlings at one time......*


You still are in my heart!


----------



## Sub_Guy

If you are presented the medal does that mean you have to give up your wound stripe?


----------



## Grunt_031

Here we go. Physical and Mental injuries or just the physical ones? It is going to interesting to see the eligibility requirements.


----------



## Infanteer

I like the overall appearence of the medal but I don't know about the name.  However, I can't think of anything better, so it is hard to chuck stones at "Sacrifice Medal".

I still don't know if this was completely necessary considering the Wound Stripe was an adequete system (a "Canadian" one as well).


----------



## medicineman

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Nice.  But where's my medal for Op HALO?



Why do the words "The cheque is in the mail" or even more appropriate "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" come to mind...


MM


----------



## X-mo-1979

Now I gotta spend 6 months trying not to get a medal.


----------



## brihard

Directorate of Honours and Recognition description

Biggest point to note I saw in it is that diagnosed mental disorders as a result of real of perceived enemy action are eligible.


----------



## HItorMiss

They can keep it...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Link to MSM coverage below.....

*Governor General announces the creation of a new military medal*
Governor General of Canada news release, 29 Aug 08
News release link

OTTAWA -- Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, is pleased to announce that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II approved the creation of the Sacrifice Medal. The medal will be awarded to military personnel, members of allied forces or Canadian civilians working under the authority of the Canadian Forces, who suffered wounds or death caused by hostile action, on or after October 7, 2001.

“Our soldiers deserve our utmost respect and deepest gratitude,” said the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada. “This medal recognizes the valued contribution of those who sacrificed their health or their lives while serving Canada.”

Applications will be processed through the usual military chain of command.

An inaugural presentation ceremony will take place at Rideau Hall at a later date.

For the artistic rendering of the Medal created by the Chancellery of Honours, please click on the following site for a small format: 
http://www.gg.ca/honours/medals/hon04-sm_e.asp  
or on this link 
http://www.gg.ca/images/sacrifice_lg.jpg 
for a large format. 

For more information on military honours, please see the Department of National Defence Web site for Canadian Forces Honours and Awards:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhr-ddhr

For further information on the Sacrifice Medal and on the creation of new honours, please refer to the attached backgrounders (Annex A and Annex B) or visit http://www.gg.ca 
or visit 
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhr-ddhr 









Canadian Press coverage here.


----------



## Infanteer

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50674.0.html


----------



## Franko

Hmmmm....the Wound Stripe isn't good enough. 

Now wounded troops who don't want to remember the incident _*have to wear it*_, thus turning it into a constant reminder. 

Can't wait for the awarding to members who have PTSD and _REALLY_ want to forget it.

Why do some people want to re-invent the wheel just for the sake of doing so?

Regards


----------



## Jammer

My own two cents...
I think the decoration is overdue. True enough about OSIs...but that is for another time.
Wear it with pride and rememberance. You earned it...and paid for it.


----------



## HItorMiss

Jammer said:
			
		

> My own two cents...
> I think the decoration is overdue. True enough about OSIs...but that is for another time.
> Wear it with pride and rememberance. You earned it...and paid for it.



Thats why I have a wound stripe and I do, I didn't nor do I want this medal. I think it's a waste and removes the history attached to the wound stripe.


----------



## George Wallace

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Thats why I have a wound stripe and I do, I didn't nor do I want this medal. I think it's a waste and removes the history attached to the wound stripe.



Interesting point.  Are Dress Regs going to be amended to reflect the wearing of the medal, vis the Wound Stripe; or will the Wound Stripe be still worn?  Will the medal cover a wide range of categories, while the Wound Stripe would still be representative of physical wounds?


----------



## daftandbarmy

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Now I gotta spend 6 months trying not to get a medal.



Brilliant

 :rofl:


----------



## Harris

I'm pretty sure you don't have to wear awards your given.  At least I couldn't find anything saying you had to in CFAO, DAOD, or QR&O texts.  It does say you can't wear ones you haven't been presented, but not that you had to wear those you were.


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Thats why I have a wound stripe and I do, I didn't nor do I want this medal. I think it's a waste and removes the history attached to the wound stripe.



I will trade you my wound stripe, for your medal, and a Wendal Clarke Hockey card.

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator

Harris said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure you don't have to wear awards your given.  At least I couldn't find anything saying you had to in CFAO, DAOD, or QR&O texts.  It does say you can't wear ones you haven't been presented, but not that you had to wear those you were.



Uhm,

Would that go along the lines of refusing to wear any other type of issued kit?

I think you have to wear all medals issued to you, 

Don't know the exact QRO on it, give me some time.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

All yours Tess 

I am very happy with my wound stripe (not that I ever wanted to get one) The history linking me to those who have been wounded as far back as the Boer war means something to me.


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> All yours Tess
> 
> I am very happy with my wound stripe (not that I ever wanted to get one) The history linking me to those who have been wounded as far back as the Boer war means something to me.



I hear you brother,

However, I heard a rumour that the chocolate that you find when you peal the foil off of this medal is Vanilla flavoured with Screech rum.  Hence why I want one 

dileas

tess


----------



## gwp

Headline

Canadian Forces Members refuse "Sacrifice" Medal
or
Soldiers will refuse to wear new Sacrifice Medal
or
Soldiers sacrifice ... sacrifice medal.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Is there a way to view a listing of those of us that have been awarded the wound stripe?

I can't seem to find it with googlefu.

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Is there a way to view a listing of those of us that have been awarded the wound stripe?
> 
> I can't seem to find it with googlefu.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Those records should be kept at DHH.  I am not sure under what "Classification" that list would be, which may make it difficult to release to the Public.


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Is there a way to view a listing of those of us that have been awarded the wound stripe?
> 
> I can't seem to find it with googlefu.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



You know, that's something I've never seen while roaming around the internet. I'm not sure that all members who've been awarded it would want their names out there for public consumption though; not in this day and age where the media swarms for stories and doesn't quite come off as always getting the context correct.

I'm actually hoping that there isn't such a listing in existance which is publicly available, and that there's no plans for one; let those who've been injured in service to their country decide whether they want to share their names, and possibly their stories. And, if not ... let them keep it private if they so choose - they earned it.


----------



## George Wallace

Vern

There would have to be a List.  There would be a List for all Awards, not only for the Historical Records, but to verify against any claims of loss medals or awards.

The question would be what Classification may put on those Lists.  If it were UNCLASSIFIED then there would be no problem.  If it were Protected B or higher, then there would be a problem.

Individuals will have their info in PeopleSoft and on their MPRRs.  Those not Serving would have to rely on the "Freedom of Information Act".


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Vern
> 
> There would have to be a List.  There would be a List for all Awards, not only for the Historical Records, but to verify against any claims of loss medals or awards.
> 
> The question would be what Classification may put on those Lists.  If it were UNCLASSIFIED then there would be no problem.  If it were Protected B or higher, then there would be a problem.
> 
> Individuals will have their info in PeopleSoft and on their MPRRs.  Those not Serving would have to rely on the "Freedom of Information Act".



I absolutely agree - my post is about a list which is available "for public consumption". There's always lists held of honours and awards etc for verification purposes ... and I've had a few occasions where I was requested to pull clothing files or run histories to determine if an issue (ie award) was made to certain individuals. I'm happy to report that the answer was "yes" every time.

Actually, much like the Commander in Chief's Commendation which is issued to a member's clothing docs when they are so awarded - a stock number history on the supply system would result in a listing history of all "accounts" (ie service numbers) it was "issued" to. <--- only since 2001 though when the CFSSU came online - prior to that date - a history would have to be run through the CFSS Web Query tool on the item's NSN --- and only old dinosaurs like me know what UACAA/UACBA/AS5DA etc mean.


----------



## Armymedic

It would be somewhat common sense (not that there is much out there) to have some sort of Medical Officer concurance on the recommendation of said medal. After all, it is the medical system who would say if you were injured or worse somewhere along the way.


----------



## George Wallace

Prairie Dog said:
			
		

> It would be somewhat common sense (not that there is much out there) to have some sort of Medical Officer concurance on the recommendation of said medal. After all, it is the medical system who would say if you were injured or worse somewhere along the way.



I am sure that is how the process will be initiated.  That, however, will be individual documents on each individual's files.  Any list will be maintained at DHH.  Medical Records would not compile such a list.


----------



## armyvern

Prairie Dog said:
			
		

> It would be somewhat common sense (not that there is much out there) to have some sort of Medical Officer concurance on the recommendation of said medal. After all, it is the medical system who would say if you were injured or worse somewhere along the way.



That seems to be the case -

From the DHH Website



> ELIGIBILITY & CRITERIA
> 
> The Medal may be awarded to members of the Canadian Forces, members of an allied force working as an integral part of the Canadian Forces such as exchange personnel, civilian employees of the Government of Canada or Canadian citizens under contract with the Government of Canada, on the condition that they were deployed as part of a military mission under the authority of the Canadian Forces, that have, on or after October 7, 2001, died or been wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of a hostile or perceived hostile action on the condition that the wounds that were sustained *required treatment by a physician and the treatment has been documented.*Eligible cases include but are not limited to:
> 
> death or wounds due to a terrorist attack, mine or bomb disposal duty, direct or indirect fire, rescue duty, collision of an aircraft, vehicle or vessel, on the condition that the occurrence is directly related to a hostile action;
> death or wounds as a direct result of friendly fire aimed at a hostile force or what is or was thought to be a hostile force;
> wounds that require not less than seven days of treatment in hospital, or an equivalent course of treatment, and that were caused by:
> exposure to the elements as a consequence of an aircraft, vehicle or vessel being destroyed or disabled by a hostile action,
> harsh treatment or neglect while a captive of a hostile force, or
> use of nuclear, biological or chemical agents by a hostile force;
> death caused by:
> exposure to the elements as a consequence of an aircraft, vehicle or vessel being destroyed or disabled by a hostile action,
> harsh treatment or neglect while a captive of a hostile force, or
> use of nuclear, biological or chemical agents by a hostile force; or
> *mental disorders that are, based on a review by a qualified mental health care practitioner, directly attributable to a hostile or perceived hostile action. *
> Ineligible cases include but are not limited to:
> 
> death or wounds due to exposure to the elements other than listed above, or caused by acts of God;
> death or wounds caused by an accident arising from their employment in a theatre of operations but were not directly attributable to a hostile action;
> death or wounds caused by disease; or
> death or wounds that were self-inflicted or caused by the victim's negligence.
> For more details, see these examples.


----------



## YYC Retired

IMHO I think the medal is a good idea. I also understand those that wish to retain the wound stripe. 

By having a medal, retired members now have the option to display the recognition for having been wounded when they attend Rememberance Day Services, ANZAC Day, Funerals etc..... 
I see the concern for those that may not wish to be presented with a medal for situations they would rather try to forget, however, the Govenor Generals website mentions that it needs to be applied for through the unit Chain of Command. Those not wanting the medal simply need not apply for it. If a member is put forward for the medal by a member of his/ her unit without knowledge then I really don't think the hierarchy would demand it be worn (least I hope not)....


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You know, that's something I've never seen while roaming around the internet. I'm not sure that all members who've been awarded it would want their names out there for public consumption though; not in this day and age where the media swarms for stories and doesn't quite come off as always getting the context correct.
> 
> I'm actually hoping that there isn't such a listing in existance which is publicly available, and that there's no plans for one; let those who've been injured in service to their country decide whether they want to share their names, and possibly their stories. And, if not ... let them keep it private if they so choose - they earned it.



As being one that was awarded the wounded stripe, I hope that this is recorded.

I, as others, have sacrificed and lived, and this should be a record to show Canadians the sacrifice we have made.

Being wounded Vern, should not be something to be embarrassed about.  I am proud to let people know that I have offered my life, was injured in doing so, so tha Canadians can live free.

dileas

tess


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Ineligible cases include but are not limited to: 

death or wounds due to exposure to the elements other than listed above, or caused by acts of God; 
death or wounds caused by an accident arising from their employment in a theatre of operations but were not directly attributable to a hostile action; 
death or wounds caused by disease; or 
death or wounds that were self-inflicted or caused by the victim's negligence. 
For more details, see these examples.



 I consider anyone who willingly joins the forces and then ends up losing thier life regardless of the circumstances should be eligible for this medal, after all it's called the "sacrifice medal" paying the ultimate price for ones country and kin and then being shunned to a technicality is a bit lame. Obviously the line about self inflicted would be considered an act of cowardis or negligence and thus apply as intended, the rest i don't see as a reason to NOT award someone a "sacrifice medal". 

 Cheers.


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> As being one that was awarded the wounded stripe, I hope that this is recorded.
> 
> I, as others, have sacrificed and lived, and this should be a record to show Canadians the sacrifice we have made.
> 
> Being wounded Vern, should not be something to be embarrassed about.  I am proud to let people know that I have offered my life, was injured in doing so, so tha Canadians can live free.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I think that you misread my post Tess. I mean to infer in NO way whatsoever that a member is/could/should/would be embarassed or ashamed by being wounded.

I'm talking about their right to personal privacy. There is indeed an official listing at DHH - of that I'm quite certain.

But, have you seen the media flock over the neighbours, friends, and especially the relatives of our fallen? Sometimes, those people have asked for their privacy and have not been given it. Police have actually had to block off streets in residential areas because the media would just not leave families alone as they were requested to do.

I'd just hate to see the media get ahold of one of our wounded's name through some "public" list that the member doesn't want to be included on because he'd rather not take the chance that some media members (or anti-war activists etc) begin tracking him down, calling, harassing etc for the "details" of his/her award/incident.

That's how I meant it.

Vern


----------



## George Wallace

YYC Retired said:
			
		

> IMHO I think the medal is a good idea. I also understand those that wish to retain the wound stripe.
> 
> .......... If a member is put forward for the medal by a member of his/ her unit without knowledge then I really don't think the hierarchy would demand it be worn (least I hope not)....



I do not know of any case where a member has known that they have been nominated in any way, shape or form, for an award of any type.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I think that you misread my post Tess. I mean to infer in NO way whatsoever that a member is/could/should/would be embarassed or ashamed by being wounded.
> 
> I'm talking about their right to personal privacy. There is indeed an official listing at DHH - of that I'm quite certain.
> 
> But, have you seen the media flock over the neighbours, friends, and especially the relatives of our fallen? Sometimes, those people have asked for their privacy and have not been given it. Police have actually had to block off streets in residential areas because the media would just not leave families alone as they were requested to do.
> 
> I'd just hate to see the media get ahold of one of our wounded's name through some "public" list that the member doesn't want to be included on because he'd rather not take the chance that some media members (or anti-war activists etc) begin tracking him down, calling, harassing etc.
> 
> That's how I meant it.
> 
> Vern



I hear you Vern,

However, medals are just like issued kit.

We, as soldiers, have no right to decide what we can wear or what is published.

Further to that, to say we are humble and do not want to show are medals, destroys the reason why we serve.  The medals are issued by the country that asks us to serve.  They do not belong to us.  They belong to Canada. We are obligated to wear them, and have them recorded in the histroy of our country.

That is what I have a problem with.  People can say that they don't want to wear them, or have them recorded, however, that is not what promotes a country and is not anyone's right to do so.

If no one wants to be reminded of their duty, well then strip the uniform, and don't acknowledge their service on ther own time.

dileas

tess


----------



## YYC Retired

I received a letter from the Govenor Generals Office (Australia) informing me that I was being considered for an award, in the letter I was asked to reply with my acceptance of the award or notification that I would prefer not to accept it ...... 

My bad for guessing the member would have a say in receiving a medal other than campaign or long service etc.....


----------



## the 48th regulator

YYC Retired said:
			
		

> I received a letter from the Govenor Generals Office (Australia) informing me that I was being considered for an award, in the letter I was asked to reply with my acceptance of the award or notification that I would prefer not to accept it ......
> 
> My bad for guessing the member would have a say in receiving a medal other than campaign or long service etc.....



Huh?

dileas

tess


----------



## YYC Retired

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



It was in reply to a post by George Wallace.... maybe I should have quoted him...... still quite new to the forums thing......


----------



## George Wallace

YYC Retired said:
			
		

> I received a letter from the Govenor Generals Office (Australia) informing me that I was being considered for an award, in the letter I was asked to reply with my acceptance of the award or notification that I would prefer not to accept it ......
> 
> My bad for guessing the member would have a say in receiving a medal other than campaign or long service etc.....



I have never heard of that being done here in Canada.  How do you go about nominating a person for a Award/Decoration/Medal and inform that person about it, only to have someone "higher" squash the nomination?  Talk about giving a person reason to have an "attitude" and "hate on for Higher Ups".   I have no problem with a person knowing they are getting an Award, but I do have a problem with them knowing that they have been nominated.  They are two different things.  The "Nomination" is not a given.  The "Receiving" is a fact.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

However, medals are just like issued kit.

We, as soldiers, have no right to decide what we can wear or what is published.

Further to that, to say we are humble and do not want to show are medals, destroys the reason why we serve.  The medals are issued by the country that asks us to serve.  They do not belong to us.  They belong to Canada. We are obligated to wear them, and have them recorded in the histroy of our country.

That is what I have a problem with.  People can say that they don't want to wear them, or have them recorded, however, that is not what promotes a country and is not anyone's right to do so.

If no one wants to be reminded of their duty, well then strip the uniform, and don't acknowledge their service on ther own time.

dileas

tess

[/quote]

 Some people are humble, and medals really aren't the reason we choose to serve our country. I as a civilian accept that i become property of the CF, and therby do as i'm told when i'm told.

 But in this instance i think the individuals should have a teeny say in whether they feel like showing a chest full of medals or not. It doesn't change who they are or what they have done or accomplished while in the uniform. 

 Cheers.


----------



## YYC Retired

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have never heard of that being done here in Canada.  How do you go about nominating a person for a Award/Decoration/Medal and inform that person about it, only to have someone "higher" squash the nomination?  Talk about giving a person reason to have an "attitude" and "hate on for Higher Ups".   I have no problem with a person knowing they are getting an Award, but I do have a problem with them knowing that they have been nominated.  They are two different things.  The "Nomination" is not a given.  The "Receiving" is a fact.



It is a similar process here. The nominator prepares the package and submits it eg. to the Govenor Generals Office. The nominator is requested to NOT inform the nominee. The incident is investigated and considered by a review board, if the board decides the incident is worthy of recognition the the nominee is contacted as to whether or not they wish to accept the award as determined by the board.......

Sorry for getting a little off topic


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I hear you Vern,
> 
> However, medals are just like issued kit.
> 
> We, as soldiers, have no right to decide what we can wear or what is published.



I'm just thinking that this bit from the Privacy Act may be applicable is all.



> Disclosure of personal information
> 
> 8. (1) Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.



Of course, with the above, para (m) may become applicable:


> (m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution,
> 
> (i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, or
> 
> (ii) disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates.



I'm just curious as to whether the "clearly benefit the individual" caveat is satisfied.

Names of our Fallen from Afghanistan become "public" once the appropriate notifications have been made. The names of our injured are not, unless those injured 'consent' to such or come forward on their own because they "retain" thier right to privacy if they so choose. So, I'm just of the thinking that it'll remain the same now despite the introduction of this medal. 

Ergo, if any list is made public ... I'd hope that those member's who didn't want it (their name) public would retain that right as other Canadians do.

Much along the lines of Library and Archives only making available the online service records of our World War One veterans. Those records for our World War Two veterans are not available "for general public consumption" because they may still be living.


----------



## Sig_Des

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> I consider anyone who willingly joins the forces and then *ends up losing thier life regardless of the circumstances * should be eligible for this medal, after all it's called the "sacrifice medal" paying the ultimate price for ones country and kin and then being shunned to a technicality is a bit lame.



So if I'm in uniform, coming home from work, walk across the street to buy a pack, and get smoked by a bus, you think I should still get a medal?

Not to sound callous, but the CF, like many other industrial type employments, is rife with the possibility of workplace injury or death. It sucks, but IMHO you can't give the same award to someone who gets hurt when a forklift drops a pallet to someone who is wounded in theater.

As far as this little gem:



> Obviously the line about self inflicted would *be considered an act of cowardis or negligence * and thus apply as intended



Why is this so obvious? In WWI soldiers who were suffering from what we now call PTSD were executed for cowardice. I'd be wary of using such a wide brush to cover situations that may have different circumstances.


----------



## Michael OLeary

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Much along the lines of Library and Archives only making available the online service records of our World War One veterans. Those records for our World War Two veterans are not available "for general public consumption" because they may still be living.



Actually, service records for released personnel who have served since 1918 (that have been transferred to the Library and Archives Canada) can also be accessed.  Only if the member has been deceased for at least 20 years can an uncensored file be obtained. Otherwise, a heavily censored file is provided, to protect the member and next of kin.

Details can be found here.


----------



## armyvern

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Actually, service records for released personnel who have served since 1918 (that have been transferred to the Library and Archives Canada) can also be accessed.  Only if the member has been deceased for at least 20 years can an uncensored file be obtained. Otherwise, a heavily censored file is provided, to protect the member and next of kin.
> 
> Details can be found here.



I guess that's kind of what I was getting at. "Deceased" is the operative word. Those members who are still living "retain" their right to privacy of personal information. 

If "wounds" are not considered "personal information", then why aren't the names of our injured being made public unless they've consented or come forward on their own. Perhaps that's the reason that there is no publicly available listing of of personnel (serving or retired) who have already been presented with the Wound Stripe??  ???

I think, actually, we have another thread on the site where the opposition/media were screaming about a "cover-up" and accusing the current ruling party of "playing with numbers" precisely because we would not release our "casualty" counts/lists.


----------



## gwp

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Is there a way to view a listing of those of us that have been awarded the wound stripe? I can't seem to find it with googlefu.
> dileas
> tess


While "wound stripes" are found in the dress manual with the instruction .... "are worn ..." (not shall be or may be) ... they are conspicuosly absent in CFP 200 - The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the CF" -likely because they are described in the criteria as a dress distinction rather than a reward or award. 

There is also this article in the CFP Newsletter indicating that the criteria for wound stripe is about the same as for the new medal 

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

and the CFP instruction here detailing recording and eligibility for wound stripes which has more latitude than the medal and indicating that wound stripes "will be worn "

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/0303_admhrmil_e.asp


----------



## Franko

gwp said:
			
		

> While "wound stripes" are found in the dress manual with the instruction .... "are worn ..." (not shall be or may be) ...



They are worn at the discretion of the recipient. 

There is plenty of directives on it and I know of many who have been awarded it and don't wear it by their own choice.

Regards


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> So if I'm in uniform, coming home from work, walk across the street to buy a pack, and get smoked by a bus, you think I should still get a medal?
> 
> Not to sound callous, but the CF, like many other industrial type employments, is rife with the possibility of workplace injury or death. It sucks, but IMHO you can't give the same award to someone who gets hurt when a forklift drops a pallet to someone who is wounded in theater.
> 
> As far as this little gem:
> 
> Why is this so obvious? In WWI soldiers who were suffering from what we now call PTSD were executed for cowardice. I'd be wary of using such a wide brush to cover situations that may have different circumstances.




 My take on the "act of god" deal was that ANYONE during the course of thier jobs in theatre or OJT could be taken out, be it a lightening strike or some other disaster, does it change the fact that the person died while in service to thier country?  Why bother making it a "sacrifice medal" if it's not handed to those who died period, let alone taking a bullet. 

 And the self inflicted wounds would be refferred to as suicide. Hence my choice of words. Hope that clarifies my take on it.

Cheers


----------



## Run away gun

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Why bother making it a "sacrifice medal" if it's not handed to those who died period, let alone taking a bullet.



"in the face of the enemy". That means in combat with the enemy.


----------



## Sig_Des

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> And the self inflicted wounds would be refferred to as suicide. Hence my choice of words. Hope that clarifies my take on it.



In the military, self-inflicted wound could be something as simple as a sunburn. It isn't necessarily PC-ese for Suicide.



> My take on the "act of god" deal was that ANYONE during the course of thier jobs in theatre or OJT could be taken out, be it a lightening strike or some other disaster, does it change the fact that the person died while in service to thier country?



In my mind, there is a pretty big difference between injury and death that could occur in any workplace, and those attributable to hostile action.

I'm not trying to trivialize those who have died in those types of situations, but that's not what the sacrifice medal is for.

Personally, I didn't think we needed a medal before, nor do I still, and that is my personal opinion.

edit: R.A.G beat me to it.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> My take on the "act of god" deal was that ANYONE during the course of thier jobs in theatre or OJT could be taken out, be it a lightening strike or some other disaster, does it change the fact that the person died while in service to thier country?  Why bother making it a "sacrifice medal" if it's not handed to those who died period, let alone taking a bullet.



Both a civil servant and a member of the CF serve their country, but only one of the does so under the knowledge that they may pay the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their normal duties.  If both died in a bus accident, neither having ever left the country, why would one have a greater eligibility for such an award under your wide applicability than the other? 



			
				Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> And the self inflicted wounds would be refferred to as suicide. Hence my choice of words. Hope that clarifies my take on it.



I think you need to do some more research into "self inflicted wounds" (of the variety of physical damage intended to avoid perceived further danger, i.e., not the "sunburn" type), not all of which are fatal, or intended to be.  Also, the reasons for them historically vary widely.  I expect that one of the dilemmas the system will face in awarding this medal is cases of self-inflicted wounds when the member was suffering from PTSD symptoms.  There are probably many aspects of the medal eligibility criteria that few of us have the professional background to assess individual cases.


----------



## George Wallace

gwp said:
			
		

> While "wound stripes" are found in the dress manual with the instruction .... "are worn ..." (not shall be or may be) ... they are conspicuosly absent in CFP 200 - The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the CF"


That is because they are detailed in CFP 265 (A-AD-265-00/AG-001) Canadian Forces Dress Instructions.

From this link



> ADM (HR-MIL) INSTRUCTION 03/03
> AWARDING AND RECORDING OF WOUND STRIPES
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> IDENTIFICATION
> Date of Issue 11 April 2003
> 
> Application This ADM(HR-Mil) Instruction applies to all members of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Supersession: Nil
> 
> Approval Authority This Instruction is issued under the authority of the Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources - Military) (ADM(HR-Mil)
> 
> Enquiries Director Casualty Support Administration (DCSA) or ADM(HR-Mil) Chief Warrant Officer
> 
> Document Content This document contains the following topics:
> 
> Introduction
> Policy and procedures
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *INTRODUCTION*
> 
> Following the precedent set in the First and Second World Wars, the Canadian Forces (CF) award 'wound stripes' to battlefield casualties, a dress distinction that recognizes a physical or mental injury received as a result of armed conflict. One narrow gold braid stripe will be worn in respect of each occasion an individual is wounded - but NOT for each separate injury.
> This distinction is not to be regarded in the nature of a reward.
> 
> *POLICY AND PROCEDURES*
> 
> *Eligibility:* All ranks of the CF, along with members of foreign military forces on exchange duties with the CF, as well as Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency and contract employees, will be eligible for this distinction.
> 
> A wound stripe recognizes injury directly attributable to hostile action received in honourable circumstances in an operational area, and requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid. Individuals who are injured in accidents in a special duty area or while employed on domestic provision of service operations or training exercises do not qualify for a wound stripe. Wound stripes are not issued posthumously.
> 
> *Awarding Authority:* The authority to wear a wound stripe is granted by the casualty's unit Commanding Officer (CO). The CO shall verify eligibility, referring doubtful cases directly, by message, to National Defence Headquarters, attention: Director Casualty Support and Administration (NDHQ/DCSA).
> 
> *Claims and Entitlements:*  All CF members who consider that they are entitled to a wound stripe may initiate a claim to their CO. Paragraph 10 of this instruction outlines a list of wounds or injuries that would qualify personnel for an entitlement to a wound stripe.
> 
> *Promulgation and Recording:* The award of a wound stripe will be published in unit routine orders. The CO will ensure that the circumstances of the award are recorded on the individual's personal file and personal record resume. The CO will also notify the individual's career manager of the award, by message. Instructions on how this procedure is to be conducted are contained in A-PM-245-001/FP-001 'Military Human Resources Records Procedures', Chapter 10 (Unit Personnel Records).
> 
> *Presentation:* On verification of eligibility, and as soon as practicable after the injury has been incurred, the casualty's CO, or representative, will formally present the wound stripe to the member. Based on the discretion of the member, the presentation may be done in public or in private. A DND 5266 (01-03) 'Certificate of the Award of Wound Stripe' will also be awarded and given to the individual. The NATO Stock Number (NSN) for the Wound Stripe Certificate is 7530-20-000-6922. Visit http://diso-s041.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/DFC2/ to download the certificate.
> 
> *Display:* Wound stripes will be worn on CF uniforms in accordance with A-AD-265-000/AG-001 'Canadian Forces Dress Instructions'. Personnel, who by reason of their service have become entitled to wear a wound stripe, may, at their own option, continue to wear them on civilian clothes after cessation of military service.
> 
> 
> *Qualification for Wound Stripes:* Wounds or injuries requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid (i.e., treatment at a medical facility of more than 5 days duration, not necessarily consecutive) that are due to hostile actions and would be a qualification for a wound stripe include, but are not limited to:
> 
> Injuries due to blast;
> Injuries due to rescue work in bombed buildings or defences;
> Injuries due to collision of a vessel or a vehicle with a mine;
> Injuries sustained by aircrew or passengers as a result of an aircraft crash, or aircraft damage, or fire in an aircraft, provided that these are due to hostile actions or take place during an operational sortie. Injuries sustained by eligible personnel who rescue, or attempt to rescue, aircrew and passengers in such circumstances would qualify for the wound stripe;
> Injuries due to mine or bomb disposal duties;
> Injuries due to terrorist attack (attempted assassinations, car bombs, etc) by hostile forces when Canadian military forces are the targets. Incidents such as these do not necessarily need to take place in an operational area;
> Wounds or injuries inflicted by our own, allied or coalition forces' projectiles (or parts of them) when these have been fired at real or perceived hostile forces;
> Injuries that require not less than one week's treatment in hospital (or equivalent) as a consequence of:
> exposure at sea in open boats and life rafts directly due to hostile action;
> exposure in the air following attacks on aircraft by hostile forces;
> inadequate or harsh treatment by hostile forces as a result of being captured or detained; or
> the employment of nuclear, biological or chemical agents by hostile forces.
> Operational stress injuries may qualify for a wound stripe if treatment of not less than one week in hospital (or equivalent) is the direct result of a traumatic incident caused by hostile forces in a combat zone.
> Injuries, although not directly due to hostile force actions, if sustained in the combat zone by personnel in direct contact with a hostile force, would also qualify for a wound stripe. For example, injuries sustained as a result of a vehicle accident directly attributable to terrain that needed to be followed due to the tactical situation would qualify for the wound stripe if they required medical treatment beyond local first aid.
> Injuries due to accidents arising out of employment in an operational area, but not directly due to hostile action, e.g. due to collisions between ships at sea, vehicle accidents, flying accidents, handling of lethal weapons, gun explosions, etc, do not qualify for the wound stripe.
> Wounds and/or injuries that are self-inflicted do not qualify for the wound stripe.


----------



## Sig_Des

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> I expect that one of the dilemmas the system will face in awarding this medal is cases of self-inflicted wounds when the member was suffering from PTSD symptoms.  There are probably many aspects of the medal eligibility criteria that few of us have the professional background to assess individual cases.



I touched onto that in my initial reply to snafu-bar here:

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/50674/post-750310.html#msg750310

He automatically associated self-inflicted wounds to suicide. I simplified to show that self-inflicted can mean different things


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Both a civil servant and a member of the CF serve their country, but only one of the does so under the knowledge that they may pay the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their normal duties.  If both died in a bus accident, neither having ever left the country, why would one have a greater eligibility for such an award under your wide applicability than the other?
> 
> I think you need to do some more research into "self inflicted wounds" (of the variety of physical damage intended to avoid perceived further danger, i.e., not the "sunburn" type), not all of which are fatal, or intended to be.  Also, the reasons for them historically vary widely.  I expect that one of the dilemmas the system will face in awarding this medal is cases of self-inflicted wounds when the member was suffering from PTSD symptoms.  There are probably many aspects of the medal eligibility criteria that few of us have the professional background to assess individual cases.



 Civil servants are still considered civilians, not "property of canada" thus the distinction with the medals.

As for the other i was referring to the list of things that would be considered a disqualification as i will show again below

Ineligible cases include but are not limited to: 

death or wounds due to exposure to the elements other than listed above, or caused by acts of God; <-- during duty this should NOT deter anyone from getting this medal as far as i'm concerned.
death or wounds caused by an accident arising from their employment in a theatre of operations but were not directly attributable to a hostile action; <--- also should have no bearing on getting this medal.
death or wounds caused by disease; or  <-- debateable case by case. Gangreen for example, food poisoning.. so on so forth.
death or wounds that were self-inflicted or caused by the victim's negligence.  <--- My reference to suicide as a no brainer fail on getting the award!
For more details, see these examples.

 Again i'm still a civilian and this is just my point of view  

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Ineligible cases include but are not limited to:
> 
> death or wounds caused by an accident arising from their employment in a theatre of operations but were not directly attributable to a hostile action;



Just because someone is in Theatre, doesn't mean that they can not have a Non-Combat related injury or death.  A guy could die in the gym from a Stroke.  A guy could be foolish enough to get between a backing vehicle and a wall in the Transport Compound.  A guy could walk into a Prop on the Flightline.  These are all accidents, injuries, or deaths that are "not in the face of the enemy".  If all three examples, however, were the result of enemy fire coming down on the Camp, then there may be a chance of changing the circumstances.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Civil servants are still considered civilians, not "property of canada" thus the distinction with the medals.



A small point, but where do you get this 'property of Canada' idea that you've used several times in this thread?

WRT to your thoughts about 'injury' and this Sacrifice Medal....I was injured in 1992, and receive a pension from VAC since Jan 2005 for this injury.  It was a back injury from parachuting, in peacetime, in Canada.  I would NOT want to have this medal, or the Wound Stripe, ever ever ever for something like this.  I would have to explain to people what it was for; the guy next to me might be Tess, or BulletMagnet, or any other of our vets who have been 'wounded in combat'.  Injured and wounded are two VERY different things to me.



			
				Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> My take on the "act of god" deal was that ANYONE during the course of thier jobs in theatre or OJT could be taken out, be it a lightening strike or some other disaster, does it change the fact that the person died while in service to thier country?  Why bother making it a "sacrifice medal" if it's not handed to those who died period, let alone taking a bullet.
> 
> And the self inflicted wounds would be refferred to as suicide. Hence my choice of words. Hope that clarifies my take on it.
> 
> Cheers



My daughter will already get my Memorial Cross, if I manage to kill myself somehow in training or in the conduct of my duties, not related to direct action with the enemy; that is enough, thanks.  If you read up on the Memorial Cross you will see that is quite nicely covers the areas you are suggesting the Sacrifice Medal does not, IMO.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A small point, but where do you get this 'property of Canada' idea that you've used several times in this thread?
> 
> 
> When you sign up for duty. You essentially signed up to be a soldier and do your part for your country, hence property of canada.
> 
> Cheers.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> When you sign up for duty. You essentially signed up to be a soldier and do your part for your country, hence property of canada.



We used to talk about our "dependents, furniture and effects" all in one phrase when we talked about our posting moves.  We stopped doing that because people aren't the same as property.  Please stop describing us in that manner.

Thank you.


----------



## armyvern

And, we give up _some_ of our rights by doing that, not _all_ of them. We serve on "behalf" of Canada --- imagine calling someone "Property of IMP Aviation" ... I saw enough "Property of" declarations in Sturgis ... I may certainly "represent", but I am not "owned". I joined voluntarily, and can still get out voluntarily; your comment is more properly suited to soldiers of "conscription" nations as they are, quite definitely, "owned". 

My .02 cents worth.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> A small point, but where do you get this 'property of Canada' idea that you've used several times in this thread?
> 
> 
> When you sign up for duty. You essentially signed up to be a soldier and do your part for your country, hence property of canada.
> 
> Cheers.



Actually, I swore my Canadian Forces Oath Of Allegiance.

*"I, Eye In the Sky, DO SWEAR THAT I WILL BE FAITHFUL AND BEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO HER MAJESTY, QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND, QUEEN OF CANADA, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS ACCORDING TO LAW.

SO HELP ME GOD*

I never once in the past 19 years, 1 month and 5 days thought I was the property of Canada, rather, that I had chosen to serve it.


----------



## armyvern

Nor did I. Nor did any of us I'm quite sure.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

A soldier in my unit has the wound strip and I think it looks alot better than adding another medal IMHO instead of saying,

I got this medal for this Tour and that that Tour, this one is my 12 yrs Service Medal, and this one is for getting blown up.

My 2 cents.


----------



## chrisf

Just out of curiosity (Sorry if I've missed the answer already) will the wear of the "sacrifice" medal after it's been presented be optional like the wear of the wound stripe was?

I don't think I'd be amiss if I were to say there are soldiers who choose not to wear their wound stripes...


----------



## RHFC_piper

As much as I'm not keen on the concept of a Purple Heart like medal, and don't believe we should stray away from the Tradition of the wound stripe, we have to realize even the wound stripe has changed over the years... and for a while, it wasn't even issued in most cases. 
Hell, when I got mine, the person who gave it too me had no idea where it was to be worn. 

But, consider the changes this decoration has already gone through;

WW1










WW2




(couldn't find a good pic - this is from my WW2 Reenactment uniform)

Current 









So, as much as I'm not totally for the medal, the wound decoration has already changed, slightly, a few times.   Just pointing that out...
... I prefer the stripe, I just wish it was still made of brass.


----------



## gwp

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is because they are detailed in CFP 265 (A-AD-265-00/AG-001) Canadian Forces Dress Instructions.
> 
> From this link



It's a moot point since the medal does replace wound stripes effective 7 October 2001 and is not retroactive.

CONTEXT
The Sacrifice Medal was created in the context of increased casualties in overseas operations to fulfill the desire of Canadians and the Government to provide formal recognition, through the award of an official medal emanating from the Crown, to those who are killed or wounded by hostile action. This honour replaces the Wound Stripe.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhr-ddhr/chart/eng/chart_display_e.asp?cat=3&ref=SM

The inaugural presentation ceremony will be held by the Governor General at Rideau Hall at a later date on which occasion Her Excellency will present the Medal to approximately 50 representative recipients. General distribution will follow with priority given to posthumous awards. There were an estimated 360 potential recipients at the time of the announcement of the creation of the medal.


----------



## George Wallace

gwp said:
			
		

> It's a moot point since the medal does replace wound stripes



So?

It will still be detailed in CFP 265 (A-AD-265-00/AG-001) Canadian Forces Dress Instructions as to how, when and where it will be worn and by whom. 

The question is:  If it replaces the Wound Stripe, then why are those who were awarded the Wound Stripe prior to 2001 may not be eligible for the new medal, as it is back dated to October 7, 2001 only?  http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhr-ddhr/chart/eng/chart_display_e.asp?cat=3&ref=SM


----------



## aesop081

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> When you sign up for duty. You essentially signed up to be a soldier and do your part for your country, hence property of canada.



Hey, Civvy guy.......

Go lecture someone else about what signing up means.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Just got back in town, I'll see if I can help.

Yes, for all those concerned there is a list of all awards and decorations and it is kept up to date as things are entered by DH&R.  Yes, it's a computer system.

As far as I know there is NO directive ordering a person to wear any medal he/she is awarded.  I looked through the CF Directions and Orders (when it was my job to know such things) and couldn't find a thing.  Let me know if you do...  

As far as I know the person who wears the wound stripe and wishes to keep wearing the wound stripe will be entitled to do so.  If you trade it in, you wear (or not) the medal from then on.  All the new wounded will get the medal, no choice there... though wearing is still up to you.

Point about PTSD.  I'm fairly certain that if you have PTSD, your doctor who is treating you MUST have your permission to disclose the nature of that injury (Medical confidence and all that) so the only way you will be awarded the Sacrifice Medal for PTSD is if you allow them to know you have it and that you want it.  If your chain of command gets antsy as they sometimes do, I personally would tell them to shove the medal and if they insist mention the privacy act, human rights and doctor/patient confidentiality.  Of course you could always just wig-out and see if they catch the drift.


----------



## gwp

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The question is:  If it replaces the Wound Stripe, then why are those who were awarded the Wound Stripe prior to 2001 may not be eligible for the new medal, as it is back dated to October 7, 2001 only?


Not unlike those individuals who were awarded the medal of bravery or star of courage on operations in hostile circumstance in Cyprus (as well as other ops) prior to Jan. 1, 1993 and could not trade them for the medal of miltary valour and star of military valour.


----------



## Reccesoldier

> The question is:  If it replaces the Wound Stripe, then why are those who were awarded the Wound Stripe prior to 2001 may not be eligible for the new medal, as it is back dated to October 7, 2001 only?



George, there is a regulation limiting the time frame for exchanges.  I can't remember if it is a directive or contained in QR&O/DAOD's or if it is just by convention, but that is the result.  The reason for it if I recall was with the institution of medals like the CD when Canada started doing things their own way the Government didn't want Vets from 30 years ago applying to have their LSGCM's turned into CD's or what have you.


----------



## Infanteer

Well, if it means anything I asked Grandfather, a recipient of two wound stripes, what he thought of the medal and he said "Oh, that's like the Americans - well that's a lot better for the guys".


----------



## medaid

Heck... If it's good enough for a Vet with 2 stripes, it's good enough for me. I have mixed feelings about this new medal.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

well here it is,   it's truly official now, included both the english and french text for my franco bretheren.  I'll check tommorrow about the wear of medals,  it has been my understanding that medals "shall" be worn,  but I like to check the book on these things, I have been wrong before.



FROM: NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
DTG: R 291437Z AUG 08
SUBJ: 291437Z AUG  08  RR CANFORGEN 163/08 SACRIFICE MEDAL
(0294183-2008242001028.txt)
------------------------------------------------------------
RAAUZYUW RCCLHAV6006 2422025-UUUU--RCWEWLA RCWEZNA RCWMBNS RCWMCTS
RCWMFYS RCWMHBS RCWMHVS RCWMMFS RCWMMGA RCWMNHS RCWMNMS RCWMPCA
RCWMPJA RCWMRGS RCWMTRS RCWMWGS RCWMWIS RCWMWVA RCWMYKS.
ZNR UUUUU ZOC
R 291437Z AUG 08
FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08 CMP 072/08
SIC WAK
SECTION 1 OF 2
SUBJ: 291437Z AUG  08  RR CANFORGEN 163/08 SACRIFICE MEDAL
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS: A. PC 2008-415, 29 AUG 2008
B. CANFORGEN 106/00 ADMHRMIL 064 081930Z SEP 00
1. HER EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF
CANADA HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN HAS APPROVED THE
CREATION OF THE SACRIFICE MEDAL (SM) AT REF A
2. THE SM WILL BE AWARDED TO CF PERSONNEL, PERSONNEL OF ALLIED
FORCES ON EXCHANGE WITH THE CF AND CANADIAN CIVILIANS WORKING UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CF WHO, ON OR AFTER 7 OCT 01, DIED OR WERE
WOUNDED UNDER HONOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AS A DIRECT RESULT OF HOSTILE
OR PERCEIVED HOSTILE ACTION PROVIDED THE WOUNDS REQUIRED TREATMENT
BY A PHYSICIAN (MO) AND THE TREATMENT IS RECORDED
PAGE 2 RCCLHAV6006 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08
3. ELIGIBLE CASES INCLUDE:
A. DEATH OR WOUNDS DUE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK, MINE OR BOMB DISPOSAL
DUTY, DIRECT OR INDIRECT FIRE, RESCUE DUTY, COLLISION OF AN
AIRCRAFT, VEHICLE OR VESSEL, ON THE CONDITION THAT THE OCCURRENCE IS
DIRECTLY RELATED TO A HOSTILE ACTION
B. DEATH OR WOUNDS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FRIENDLY FIRE AIMED AT A
HOSTILE FORCE OR WHAT IS OR WAS THOUGHT TO BE A HOSTILE FORCE
C. WOUNDS THAT REQUIRE NOT LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS OF TREATMENT IN
HOSPITAL, OR AN EQUIVALENT COURSE OF TREATMENT, AND THAT WERE CAUSED
BY
(1) EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN AIRCRAFT,
VEHICLE OR VESSEL BEING DESTROYED OR DISABLED BY A HOSTILE ACTION,
(2) HARSH TREATMENT OR NEGLECT WHILE A CAPTIVE OF A HOSTILE FORCE,
OR
(3) USE OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL AGENTS BY A HOSTILE FORCE
D. DEATH CAUSED BY
(1) EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN AIRCRAFT,
VEHICLE OR VESSEL BEING DESTROYED OR DISABLED BY A HOSTILE ACTION
(2) HARSH TREATMENT OR NEGLECT WHILE A CAPTIVE OF A HOSTILE FORCE,
OR
PAGE 3 RCCLHAV6006 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08
(3) USE OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL AGENTS BY A HOSTILE
FORCE, OR
E. MENTAL DISORDERS THAT ARE DIAGNOSED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA SET
OUT IN THE QUOTE DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL
DISORDERS UNQUOTE, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC
ASSOCIATION, AND BASED ON A REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED MENTAL HEALTH CARE
PRACTITIONER, ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO A HOSTILE OR PERCEIVED
HOSTILE ACTION
4. INELIGIBLE CASES INCLUDE:
A. DEATH OR WOUNDS DUE TO EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS, OR CAUSED BY
ACTS OF GOD
B. DEATH OR WOUNDS CAUSED BY AN ACCIDENT ARISING FROM THEIR
EMPLOYMENT IN A THEATRE OF OPERATIONS BUT WERE NOT DIRECTLY
ATTRIBUTABLE TO A HOSTILE ACTION
C. DEATH OR WOUNDS CAUSED BY DISEASE,OR
D. DEATH OR WOUNDS THAT WERE SELF-INFLICTED OR CAUSED BY THE VICTIM
S NEGLIGENCE
5. A RECIPIENT OF THE MEDAL WHO SUBSEQUENTLY MEETS THE CRITERIA OF
THE MEDAL AGAIN IS AWARDED A BAR TO THE MEDAL
6. THE MEDAL OR BAR REPRESENT EACH OCCASION A PERSON IS WOUNDED BUT
PAGE 4 RCCLHAV6006 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08
NOT THE NUMBER OF WOUNDS SUSTAINED ON ANY ONE OCCASION
7. THE SM IS A SILVER CIRCULAR MEDAL 36 MM IN DIAMETER WITH A
STRAIGHT SUSPENSION BAR ORNAMENTED WITH THE ROYAL CROWN AND BEARS ON
THE OBVERSE A CONTEMPORARY EFFIGY OF HM THE QUEEN WITH THE
INSCRIPTIONS QUOTE ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA UNQUOTE AND QUOTE
CANADA UNQUOTE SEPARATED BY SMALL MAPLE LEAVES. THE REVERSE BEARS A
REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUE CALLED CANADA FROM THE CDN NATIONAL
VIMY MEMORIAL AND THE INSCRIPTION QUOTE SACRIFICE UNQUOTE
8. THE BAR IS SILVER WITH RAISED EDGES AND BEARS A SINGLE MAPLE LEAF
9. THE RIBBON IS WATERED, 32 MM WIDE WITH A BLACK STRIPE IN THE
MIDDLE (10 MM), ON EITHER SIDE OF WHICH ARE RED STRIPES (11 MM) ON
WHICH ARE CENTRED WHITE STRIPES (1 MM)
10. THE SM WILL BE ENGRAVED WITH THE SN, ABBREVIATED SUBSTANTIVE
RANK AT TIME OF INCIDENT, INITIALS AND SURNAME OF MIL RECIPIENTS AND
WITH THE FORENAMES AND SURNAME OF CIVILIAN RECIPIENTS. IT IS
THEREFORE IMPORTANT THAT WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS, UNITS ENSURE THE
INFO PROVIDED IS ACCURATE AND THAT RANK REFLECTS THE SUBSTANTIVE
RANK HELD ON DATE OF QUALIFICATION FOR MEDAL AND NOT AT TIME OF
APPLICATION. THE UNIT WILL HAVE 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE AWARDS
TO INSPECT THEM AND REPORT ANY ERROR TO DH R. IF THE UNIT MADE THE
PAGE 5 RCCLHAV6006 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08
ERROR, A FIN CODE WILL BE REQUIRED TO COVER THE COST OF REPLACEMENT
AND DELAYS ARE TO BE EXPECTED. IF THE ERROR WAS MADE BY DH R, DH R
WILL ASSUME FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE REPLACEMENT
11. THE SM FOLLOWS ORDERS AND DECORATIONS AND PRECEDES ALL CAMPAIGN
AND SERVICE MEDALS IN THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE (IE AFTER THE RVM AND
BEFORE THE GKM). A BAR IS WORN CENTERED ON THE RIBBON. WHEN MORE
THAN ONE BAR HAS BEEN AWARDED, THEY SHALL BE EQUALLY SPACED ON THE
RIBBON. A SILVER MAPLE LEAF IS WORN ON THE UNDRESS RIBBON TO DENOTE
THE AWARD OF A BAR, A GOLD MAPLE LEAF DENOTES THE AWARD OF A SECOND
BAR, A RED MAPLE LEAF DENOTES THE AWARD OF A THIRD BAR AND A
COMBINATION OF THOSE DEVICES DENOTES ANY FURTHER BARS AWARDED
12. APPLICATION FOR THIS MEDAL SHALL NOT BE MADE ON-LINE BUT USING
THE QUOTE SACRIFICE MEDAL APPLICATION FORM UNQUOTE (DND 2479) WHICH
REQUIRES SIGNATURES OF BOTH THE CO AND AN MO TO CONFIRM ELIGIBILITY
13. THE GOVERNOR GENERAL WILL HOLD AN INAUGURAL PRESENTATION
CEREMONY AT A LATER DATE AT WHICH APPROXIMATELY 50 REPRESENTATIVE
RECIPIENTS WILL BE PRESENTED WITH THE SM. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION WILL
FOLLOW BASED ON APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE FLEET AND FIELD WITH
PRIORITY GIVEN TO POSTHUMOUS AWARDS
14. DH R WILL PROVIDE INITIAL RECIPIENTS WITH UNDRESS RIBBON BARS
PAGE 6 RCCLHAV6006 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08
AND 8 INCHES OF RIBBON FOR COURT MOUNTING. RIBBON WILL BE AVAL
THROUGH THE SUPPLY SYSTEM AT A LATER DATE
15. EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF RELEASE OF THISE MSG, THE WOUND
STRIPE SHALL NO LONGER BE AWARDED. RECIPIENTS OF THE SM SHALL NOT
WEAR THE WOUND STRIPE UNLESS THEY HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE BADGE AS A
RESULT OF WOUNDS RECEIVED BEFORE 7 OCT 01. FURTHER INFO IS AVAL ON
THE DH R DIN WEBSITE HTTP://WWW.HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR/
16 SIGNED BY MGEN W SEMIANIW, CMP
END OF ENGLISH TEXT / LA TEXTE FRANCAIS SUIT
OBJ : MEDAILLE DU SACRIFICE
REFS : A. PC 2008-415, 29 AOUT 2008
B. CANFORGEN 106/00 ADMHRMIL 064 081930Z SEP 00
1. SON EXCELLENCE LA GOUVERNEURE GENERALE ET COMMANDANTE EN CHEF DU
CANADA A ANNONCE QUE SA MAJESTE LA REINE A APPROUVE LA CREATION DE
LA MEDAILLE DU SACRIFICE (MS) A LA REF A
2. LA MS SERA ATTRIBUEE AUX MILITAIRES DES FORCES CANADIENNES, AUX
MILITAIRES D UNE FORCE ALLIEE QUI PARTICIPENT A UN PROGRAMME D
ECHANGE AVEC LES FC ET AUX EMPLOYES CIVILS QUI TRAVAILLENT SOUS LA
RESPONSABILITE DES FC QUI, LE 7 OCT 01 OU APRES, SONT MORTS OU ONT
ETE BLESSES, DANS DES CIRCONSTANCES HONORABLES PAR SUITE D UN ACTE
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08 CMP 072/08
SIC WAK
FINAL SECTION OF 2
HOSTILE REEL OU APPARENT, A CONDITION QUE LES BLESSURES AIENT ETE
SUFFISAMMENT GRAVES POUR AVOIR NECESSITE DES TRAITEMENTS D UN
MEDECIN (MM) ET QU ILS ONT ETE CONSIGNES EN BONNE ET DUE FORME
3. VOICI LES CAS ADMISSIBLES :
A. MORT OU BLESSURES RESULTANT D ATTAQUES TERRORISTES, DES FONCTIONS
DE DEMINAGE OU DE NEUTRALISATION DE BOMBES, DE TIRS DIRECTS OU
INDIRECTS, DES FONCTIONS DE SAUVETAGE, D UNE COLLISION D UN AVION, D
UN VEHICULE OU D UN NAVIRE, A CONDITION QUE L INCIDENT SOIT
DIRECTEMENT LIE A UN ACTE HOSTILE
B. MORT OU BLESSURES RESULTANT DE TIRS AMIS DIRECTS VISANT UNE FORCE
HOSTILE OU CE QUE L ON CROIT ETRE UNE FORCE HOSTILE
C. BLESSURES NECESSITANT AU MOINS SEPT JOURS D HOSPITALISATION (OU L
EQUIVALENT) AUX FINS DE TRAITEMENT ET RESULTANT SOIT
PAGE 2 RCCLHAV6007 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08
1) D UNE EXPOSITION AUX ELEMENTS APRES LA DESTRUCTION OU LA MISE
HORS D ETAT DE SERVICE D UN AERONEF, D UN VEHICULE OU D UN NAVIRE
PAR SUITE D UN ACTE HOSTILE,
2) DE MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS OU D UN MANQUE DE SOINS EN TANT QUE
PRISONNIER D UNE FORCE HOSTILE,
3) DE L UTILISATION D ARMES NUCLEAIRES, BIOLOGIQUES OU CHIMIQUES PAR
UNE FORCE HOSTILE
D. MORT CAUSEE PAR
1) UNE EXPOSITION AUX ELEMENTS APRES LA DESTRUCTION OU LA MISE HORS
D ETAT DE SERVICE D UN AERONEF, D UN VEHICULE OU D UN NAVIRE PAR
SUITE D UN ACTE HOSTILE,
2) UN MAUVAIS TRAITEMENT OU UN MANQUE DE SOINS EN TANT QUE
PRISONNIER D UNE FORCE HOSTILE,
3) L UTILISATION D ARMES NUCLEAIRES, BIOLOGIQUES OU CHIMIQUES PAR
UNE FORCE HOSTILE,
E. LES TROUBLES MENTAUX QUI SONT DIAGNOSTIQUES SELON LES CRITERES
FIXES DANS LE CIT DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL
DISORDERS FINCIT (MANUEL DIAGNOSTIQUE ET STATISTIQUE DES TROUBLES
MENTAUX), PUBLIE PAR L AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, ET QUI
SONT, BASES SUR UNE ETUDE D UN PRATICIEN QUALIFIE EN SANTE MENTALE,
PAGE 3 RCCLHAV6007 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08
DIRECTEMENT LIES A DES ACTES HOSTILES REELS OU APPARENTS.
4. VOICI LES CAS NON ADMISSIBLES :
A. MORT OU BLESSURES EN RAISON DE L EXPOSITION AUX ELEMENTS OU
CAUSES PAR UNE CATASTROPHE NATURELLE
B. MORT OU BLESSURES CAUSES PAR UN ACCIDENT QUI SURVIENT AU COURS DE
L AFFECTATION DANS LE THEATRE MAIS QUI N EST PAS LIE DIRECTEMENT A
DES ACTES HOSTILES C. MORT OU BLESSURES RESULTANT D UNE MALADIE,
D. MORT OU BLESSURES RESULTANT DE LA MUTILATION VOLONTAIRE OU DE LA
NEGLIGENCE DE LA PART DE LA VICTIME
5. UN RECIPIENDAIRE DE LA MEDAILLE QUI REPOND AUX CRITERES D
ADMISSIBILITE RELATIF A LA MEDAILLE UNE AUTRE FOIS SE VOIT DECERNER
UNE BARRETTE
6. LA MEDAILLE OU LA BARRETTE REPRESENTE UN INCIDENT AU COURS DUQUEL
LA PERSONNE EST BLESSEE ET NON LE NOMBRE DE BLESSURES SUBIES LORS D
UN INCIDENT DONNE
7. LA MS EST UNE MEDAILLE EN ARGENT DE FORME RONDE DE 36 MM DE
DIAMETRE MUNIE D UNE ATTACHE DROITE ORNEE DE LA COURONNE ROYALE. L
AVERS DE LA MEDAILLE PORTE UNE EFFIGIE CONTEMPORAINE DE SA MAJESTE
LA REINE DU CANADA ENTOUREE DES INSCRIPTIONS CIT ELIZABETH II DEI
GRATIA REGINA FINCIT ET CIT CANADA FINCIT SEPAREES PAR DE PETITES
PAGE 4 RCCLHAV6007 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08
FEUILLES D ERABLE. LE REVERS DE LA MEDAILLE PORTE LA REPRESENTATION
DE LA STATUE APPELEE CANADA DU MONUMENT COMMEMORATIF DU CANADA A
VIMY ET L INSCRIPTION CIT SACRIFICE FINCIT
8. LA BARRETTE EST FAITE D ARGENT COMPRENANT UNE BORDURE SURELEVEE
SURMONTEE D UNE SEULE FEUILLE D ERABLE
9. LE RUBAN MOIRE DE 32 MM DE LARGEUR EST ORNE D UNE BANDE CENTRALE
NOIRE (10 MM), ENTRE DEUX BANDES ROUGES (11 MM) QUI PORTENT CHACUNE
UNE BANDE CENTRALE BLANCHE (1 MM)
10. LA MS SERA GRAVEE DU NUMERO MATRICULE, DU GRADE EFFECTIF ABREGE
QU AVAIT LE MILITAIRE AU MOMENT DE L INCIDENT, AINSI DE SES
INITIALES ET DE SON NOM OU DES PRENOMS ET DU NOM DE TOUT
RECIPIENDAIRE CIVIL. IL EST DONC IMPORTANT QUE, LORSQU ELLE FONT UNE
DEMANDE, LES UNITES S ASSURENT QUE L INFO FOURNIE EST EXACTE ET QUE
LE GRADE REFLETE LE GRADE EFFECTIF TENU LE JOUR DE LA QUALIFICATION
POUR LA MEDAILLE ET NON AU MOMENT DE LA DEMANDE. L UNITE AURA 30
JOURS APRES AVOIR RECU LA DISTINCTION HONORIFIQUE POUR L EXAMINER ET
FAIRE RAPPORT DE TOUTE ERREUR AU DDHR. SI L UNITE A FAIT L ERREUR,
UN CODE FINANCIER SERA REQUIS POUR COUVRIR LES COUTS DE
REMPLACEMENT, ET DES RETARDS SONT A PREVOIR. SI LE DDHR A FAIT L
ERREUR, CE DERNIER ASSUMERA LES COUTS ASSOCIES AU REMPLACEMENT
PAGE 5 RCCLHAV6007 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08
11. LA MS SUIT LES ORDRES ET DECORATIONS ET PRECEDE TOUTES LES
MEDAILLES DE CAMPAGNE ET DE SERVICE DANS L ORDRE DE PRESEANCE
(C.-A-D., APRES LA MEDAILLE ROYALE DE VICTORIA ET AVANT LA MEDAILLE
DU GOLFE ET DU KOWEIT). UNE BARRETTE EST CENTREE SUR LE RUBAN. QUAND
PLUS D UNE BARRETTE A ETE DECERNEE, ELLES SONT EQUIDISTANTES SUR LE
RUBAN. UNE FEUILLE D ERABLE ARGENTEE SUR LE RUBAN INDIQUE L
ATTRIBUTION D UNE BARRETTE, UNE FEUILLE D ERABLE DOREE INDIQUE L
ATTRIBUTION D UNE DEUXIEME BARRETTE, UNE FEUILLE D ERABLE ROUGE
INDIQUE L ATTRIBUTION D UNE TROISIEME BARRETTE ET LA COMBINAISON DE
CES INSIGNES INDIQUENT L ATTRIBUTION D UN NOMBRE SUPPLEMENTAIRE DE
BARRETTES
12.ON NE PEUT FAIRE DE DEMANDE EN LIGNE POUR CETTE MEDAILLE. IL FAUT
UTILISER CIT LE FORMULAIRE DE DEMANDE DE MEDAILLE DU SACRIFICE
FINCIT (DND 2479) QUI REQUIERT LA SIGNATURE DU CMDT ET DU MM POUR
CONFIRMER L ADMISSIBILITE
13. LES PREMIERES MS SERONT PRESENTEES PAR LA GOUVERNEURE GENERALE A
ENVIRON 50 RECIPIENDAIRES REPRESENTATIFS LORS D UNE CEREMONIE A UNE
DATE ULTERIEURE. LA DISTRIBUTION GENERALE SE FERA SELON LES DEMANDES
RECUES DE LA FLOTTE ET DU TERRAIN. LA PRIORITE SERA DONNEE AUX
MEDAILLES ATTRIBUEES A TITRE POSTHUME
PAGE 6 RCCLHAV6007 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 163/08
14. LE DDHR FOURNIRA AUX PREMIERS RECIPIENDAIRES DES BARRETTES DE
RUBAN ET 8 POUCES DE RUBAN POUR LE MONTAGE DE COUR. LE RUBAN SERA
DISPONIBLE PAR LE BIAIS DU SYSTEME D APPROVISIONNEMENT A UNE DATE
ULTERIEURE
15. A COMPTER DE LA DATE DE CE MESSAGE, LE GALON DE BLESSE NE SERA
PLUS DECERNE. LES RECIPIENDAIRES DE LA MS NE DEVRONT PAS PORTER LE
GALON DE BLESSE, A MOINS QU ILS NE SE SOIENT QUALIFIES POUR L
INSIGNE EN RAISON DE BLESSURES SUBIES AVANT LE 7 OCT 01. DE PLUS
AMPLES RENSEIGNEMENTS SONT DISPONIBLES SUR LE SITE WEB INTERNE DU
DDHR HTTP://WWW.HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR/
16. SIGNE PAR LE MGEN W. SEMIANIW, CPM
BT
#6006


----------



## HItorMiss

So the question is can I keep my wound stripe and tell them to keep this ridiculous (IMO) medal?


----------



## the 48th regulator

Neat,

Now I know that unless I was shot in an area that is not hidden by the government, I get to wear a cute felt stripe.  One that is officially ordered to not be recognized, as the wound stripe is only a a dress distinction.


pfft.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> So the question is can I keep my wound stripe and tell them to keep this ridiculous (IMO) medal?



Apparently not.

See para 15. Only those awarded wound stripes prior to 07 Oct 2001, are eligible to still wear them. I'm taking this to mean, our pers who have received such since that date will be receiving the Sacrifice medal ... and that it is all that is authorized for wear by those pers upon it's presentation to them.



> 15. EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF RELEASE OF THISE MSG, THE WOUND
> STRIPE SHALL NO LONGER BE AWARDED. RECIPIENTS OF THE SM SHALL NOT
> WEAR THE WOUND STRIPE UNLESS THEY HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE BADGE AS A
> RESULT OF WOUNDS RECEIVED *BEFORE 7 OCT 01*. FURTHER INFO IS AVAL ON
> THE DH R DIN WEBSITE HTTP://WWW.HR.OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DHR-DDHR/


----------



## George Wallace

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> So the question is can I keep my wound stripe and tell them to keep this ridiculous (IMO) medal?



EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF RELEASE OF THISE MSG, THE WOUND
STRIPE SHALL NO LONGER BE AWARDED. RECIPIENTS OF THE SM SHALL NOT
WEAR THE WOUND STRIPE UNLESS THEY HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE BADGE AS A
RESULT OF WOUNDS RECEIVED BEFORE 7 OCT 01.

So.......for you no.  Tess......yes.


----------



## HItorMiss

Like HELL!!!!

You can to the best of my knwledge refuse a decoration... I would rather wear nothing then that cheap piece of tin!


----------



## Sig_Des

George Wallace said:
			
		

> EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF RELEASE OF THISE MSG, THE WOUND
> STRIPE *SHALL NO LONGER BE AWARDED*.



If I read this right though, until such a date that BM should receive the Medal, he can keep wearing the stripe.


----------



## armyvern

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> If I read this right though, until such a date that BM should receive the Medal, he can keep wearing the stripe.



Correct as per my last post. That's how I take it too.

He can wear his wound stripe until the Sacrifice Medal is presented to him.


----------



## HItorMiss

Time to start ducking Parades LMAO  ;D

Though I also wonder how many times they can charge me for being out of dress should I refuse to wear it, if presented with it.


----------



## George Wallace

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> If I read this right though, until such a date that BM should receive the Medal, he can keep wearing the stripe.



This is the line that pertains to BM:  *UNLESS THEY HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE BADGE AS A
RESULT OF WOUNDS RECEIVED BEFORE 7 OCT 01.*

BM doesn't qualify, but as Vern points out.......until he is presented the medal, he still will have the Wound Stripe.


----------



## armyvern

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Time to start ducking Parades LMAO  ;D
> 
> Though I also wonder how many times they can charge me for being out of dress should I refuse to wear it, if presented with it.



_Methinks_ ( > <--- for Kat) somehow that your ass will not be able to duck out of this one; and we all know how good you are at ducking anyway. Perhaps if you wear your Oakleys on a daily basis ... they will all fail to recognize you.


----------



## HItorMiss

GW I can wear my stripe until they present me with the medal......If I never get presented with the medal well.....


----------



## Sig_Des

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> _Methinks_ ( > <--- for Kat) somehow that your *** will not be able to duck out of this one; and we all know how good you are at ducking anyway. Perhaps if you wear your Oakleys on a daily basis ... they will all fail to recognize you.



Bet you he'd wear the medal if it was engraved with an Oakley O  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> GW I can wear my stripe until they present me with the medal......If I never get presented with the medal well.....



So you plan on being "out" everytime a 'Presentation' may be taking place........Remember: You can run, but you can't hide.......forever.    ;D


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Like HELL!!!!
> 
> You can to the best of my knwledge refuse a decoration... I would rather wear nothing then that cheap piece of tin!



Hear hear.

I have been recognized, for receiveing 7 (seven) bullets that ripped apart my body.

I serverd and almost died, and all I get is freaking felt gold stripe.  I can be humble like the next Canadian who served, but for the love of Pete, can they not recognize us cold warriors?

Would it truly bankrupt the Canadian Government to back date the medal?

Disgusting.....end my rant.   It has nothing to do with me being selfish, more so with the Government moving on from past mistakes.  And we are the flotsam and jetsam of their mission.

I might as well spark up the iltis in the war museum and park it on my front lawn!!!

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

GW,

Clearly I am not good at hiding  ;D

And yes you are right with O on it I would probably wear it!


----------



## Old Sweat

Fellow soldiers, serving and like me, out to pasture,

One thought: the wound stripe was abolished some time before I joined the army in 1957. I know this because we had a couple of guys in my battery circa 1958 who were wounded in Korea and did not wear the badge. (One was known as shrapnel ass because he was hit by a mortar splinter while bending over repairing a break in a line.) The badge was not reinstated until the 1990's and many of you wear it with honour.

However, unlike the wound stripe, which is a badge, the medal is something that once gazetted can not be taken away with the stroke of a pen. The intent is not to lessen the signficance of the wound stripe, it is to more formally acknowledge your condition.

I know this is unlikely to change many minds, and I guess I am wasting a post, but I hope some of you will accept the good intenetions behind the institution of the award.


----------



## George Wallace

Old Sweat

Good points, and ones we never even thought to look at.


----------



## HItorMiss

No GW I thought of them I just don't personaly agree with them. Remember I keep sayin IMO, I wont take away from another soldier that wants this I just don't


----------



## the 48th regulator

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Fellow soldiers, serving and like me, out to pasture,
> 
> One thought: the wound stripe was abolished some time before I joined the army in 1957. I know this because we had a couple of guys in my battery circa 1958 who were wounded in Korea and did not wear the badge. (One was known as shrapnel *** because he was hit by a mortar splinter while bending over repairing a break in a line.) The badge was not reinstated until the 1990's and many of you wear it with honour.
> 
> However, unlike the wound stripe, which is a badge, the medal is something that once gazetted cannot be taken away with the stroke of a pen. The intent is not to lessen the significance of the wound stripe, it is to more formally acknowledge your condition.
> 
> I know this is unlikely to change many minds, and I guess I am wasting a post, but I hope some of you will accept the good intentions behind the institution of the award.





			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Is there a way to view a listing of those of us that have been awarded the wound stripe?
> 
> I can't seem to find it with googlefu.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Here is my concern 

Does Canada record those of us that made the sacrifice and lived.  Are the wounded, who lived, recorded o tell the story of us Canadians that have shed blood in the service of the nation?

As I said, are those of us that have receive a dainty felt patch recognized like the modern soldier, as people who have given for the cause, or is this medal another token to appease the left to justify our mission?

Are we soldiers once again being forsaken for politics?


dileas

tess


----------



## Greymatters

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Does Canada record those of us that made the sacrifice and lived.  Are the wounded, who lived, recorded o tell the story of us Canadians that have shed blood in the service of the nation?



If not, then Im sure someone will eventually write a book about it...


----------



## geo

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Hear hear.
> 
> I have been recognized, for receiveing 7 (seven) bullets that ripped apart my body.
> 
> I serverd and almost died, and all I get is freaking felt gold stripe.  I can be humble like the next Canadian who served, but for the love of Pete, can they not recognize us cold warriors?
> 
> Would it truly bankrupt the Canadian Government to back date the medal?
> 
> Disgusting.....end my rant.   It has nothing to do with me being selfish, more so with the Government moving on from past mistakes.  And we are the flotsam and jetsam of their mission.
> 
> I might as well spark up the iltis in the war museum and park it on my front lawn!!!
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess


Tess,
getting the medal "coined" in the 1st place was one hurdle to pass.
Now that it does exist, steps can be taken to petition the gov't to backdate further..... should you want to pursue that particular matter.

Good luck

CHIMO!


----------



## Franko

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I might as well spark up the iltis in the war museum and park it on my front lawn!!!



Why not? You paid for it in spades, kinda like the fella selling stolen kit on eBay           ;D

Regards


----------



## jollyjacktar

Personally I hope that I am never put into the position of deciding on the pros and cons of wearing such an award.  From what I have read of posts of those here who have been recognised thusly it is not commensurate with the price paid in blood.

Speaking as a Navy git, the wound stripe is more of an Army ideal.  It would look strange on my Carnival Cruise Line outfit and be the cause of endless explanations to the great unwashed here in the Fleet.  A medal would perhaps be less so intrusive, of course as pointed out the stripe was optional in it's wearing and the issue could be ducked that way if desired.

Could you not make it clear to command that you would not wish an application be made on your behalf for the medal if you were to qualify for one?


----------



## geo

I would contend that this new medal should be given the option of "drawer liner"... same way as my 125th Jubilee medal sits in its box in my dresser drawer... forever and ever... amen!

Give it to the individual who has paid the price... and let him make up his own mind up - to wear or NOT


----------



## the 48th regulator

geo said:
			
		

> I would contend that this new medal should be given the option of "drawer liner"... same way as my 125th Jubilee medal sits in its box in my dresser drawer... forever and ever... amen!
> 
> Give it to the individual who has paid the price... and let him make up his own mind up - to wear or NOT



I disagree with this ideology.

If it comes down to deciding what we wear on our uniforms, then we have broken down the reason why we serve.

We wear our medals, as a method for Canada to recognize what we as Canadians as a whole represent.  Those of us that have volunteered to serve our country, have done so knowing the risk, and Canada has decided to recognize our sacrifice by doing so.  They do this with an age old distinction of medals.

The moment we decide, on our own, what is fitting to pin on our bodies, disrespects our nations acknowledgement our our duty.  As trivial as we see these pieces of recognition, they belong to Canada's distinct view.

My rant is about the fact that a wound stripe, as historical as it is, is not recognized as a dress distinction.  It is as if a wound is a fault of the soldier.  Finally Canada has decided to recognize the fact that, we as soldiers, need to be acknowledged for our sacrifice.  Remember the only difference between the fallen that we respect, and those that survive, are only separated by a thin barrier!  We have stayed here on this Earth, while they have journeyed on.

For the Government to set time limits, to me trivializes the act of the great "Hurdle".  Again, the moment we as soldiers pick and choose what we can wear, flies in the face of this hypocrisy.

We must have pride in what we do, what we have shown to have done, and what we bring to the Canadian public.  It is about high time the government recognizes this, and follows our example.

dileas

tess


----------



## rwgill

Tess, for what it's worth, I support you.

Why don't you apply for it?  The worse they can say is no, then you can _appeal_ through more _public_ means.  I am quite sure that you are not the only veteran who has had to fight for something they deserve.


----------



## the 48th regulator

rwgill said:
			
		

> Tess, for what it's worth, I support you.
> 
> Why don't you apply for it?  The worse they can say is no, then you can _appeal_ through more _public_ means.  I am quite sure that you are not the only veteran who has had to fight for something they deserve.



Cheers and thanks Brother.

It is the fact, that once again, a citizen has to apply and educate the Government.

Every aggresive military action, by us soldiers serving as peackeepers was hidden, and it just appears that the current government is no different.

dileas

tess


----------



## Skynewf

As Of the 28 Aug 08 the wound stripe will not apply in the CF. The Sacrifice Medal(SM) will be issued. 

http://www.gg.ca/honours/medals/hon04-sm_e.asp

PTSD casse are covered on a case by case

"MENTAL DISORDERS THAT ARE DIAGNOSED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE QUOTE DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS UNQUOTE, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, AND BASED ON A REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED MENTAL HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER, ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO A HOSTILE OR PERCEIVED HOSTILE ACTION"


----------



## daftandbarmy

The ANA Vets enter the fray...


2008 DOMINION CONVENTION 
SUPPLEMENTARY RESOLUTION

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CANADIAN FORCES SACRIFICE MEDAL

WHEREAS the Canadian Forces Directorate of Honours and Recognition have recently announced the Sacrifice Medal for the following purpose:
“The Sacrifice Medal was created in the context of increased casualties in overseas operations to fulfill the desire of Canadians and the Government to provide formal recognition, through the award of an official medal emanating from the Crown, to those who are killed or wounded by hostile action. This honour replaces the Wound Stripe.”; and

WHEREAS this award is only retroactive to October, 2001; and 

WHEREAS there are many who have made the same sort of sacrifice while engaged in military operations abroad prior to this date; and 

WHEREAS this is a insult for the many who have put themselves in harms way in support of Canadian Government policy, and a slap in the face for those who have made the same sacrifices that this medal represents, but have been specifically excluded from this recognition; and

WHEREAS there does not appear to be any logical reason for insulting those who have made the same sacrifice prior to October 7, 2001; 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that ANAVETS should petition the government to extend the parameters of this medal to include those deserving prior to October 7, 2001.


----------



## CountDC

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The ANA Vets enter the fray...
> 
> 
> 2008 DOMINION CONVENTION
> SUPPLEMENTARY RESOLUTION
> 
> BOARD OF DIRECTORS
> 
> CANADIAN FORCES SACRIFICE MEDAL
> 
> WHEREAS the Canadian Forces Directorate of Honours and Recognition have recently announced the Sacrifice Medal for the following purpose:
> “The Sacrifice Medal was created in the context of increased casualties in overseas operations to fulfill the desire of Canadians and the Government to provide formal recognition, through the award of an official medal emanating from the Crown, to those who are killed or wounded by hostile action. This honour replaces the Wound Stripe.”; and
> 
> WHEREAS there does not appear to be any logical reason for insulting those who have made the same sacrifice prior to October 7, 2001;



logic is a matter of perspective.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I guess no matter how one feels they are here, but a toast to hoping they all sit rusting away in room somewhere never having to be used........


----------



## Neill McKay

I was surprised that it would be backdated at all, much less that far back.  Had they said "as of today, anyone injured in the service of Her Majesty etc. will be eligible for the Sacrifice Medal and awarding of wound stripes will cease" there'd be no issue.  Going back to what appears to be an arbitrary date seven years ago seems to leave room for argument over just what that date should be, and while I'm sure the argument can be settled easily enough it's still evidently causing some ill feelings.


----------



## rwgill

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I guess no matter how one feels they are here, but a toast to hoping they all sit rusting away in room somewhere never having to be used........


I'll drink to that! :cheers:


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

I agree there should have been an "as of this date" using the DTG of the canforgen to set the time limit for the award and the stripe,  think about the reason why anytime must be set for a second.  Canada has used the wound stripe through how many wars,  to leave a blanket back date, you will have the grandkids and great grandkids of former soldiers looking for medals.  Now I still don't think this was a particularly good idea switching to the new medal.  The wound stripe IMO was fine and it was indeed up to the member to either wear them, or not.


----------



## geo

FWIW, I would propose that ANY living soldier or ex soldier who so desires one should receive his chance to get one.

Offer not open to the estate of former, deceased soldiers.


----------



## rwgill

The date bothers me, but I do agree with some sort of time limit/conditions.  The Canadian Honours system was born in 1967.  Being a Canadian award, 1967 is perhaps a more _logical_ date.  If conditions were limited to injured soldiers being required to apply themselves (no posthumous presentations) and automatic presentations to families of soldiers killed in action, we may only be talking about a couple of hundred additional medals.

This is based upon my opinion and at present, my limited knowledge of how many soldiers have been injured while on a CF mission.


----------



## the 48th regulator

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> The date was set because that is the date that Canada formally committed to participating in the Global War on Terror.



No, that is not why the date was picked.  It was based on the proposal date of the medal;

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080830.MEDAL30/TPStory/National

According to Ms. Thorn, the Rideau Hall spokeswoman, there is a five-year retroactive eligibility for awards, counting from the time an honour is initially proposed. That allows the Sacrifice Medal to be backdated to the start of the Afghan conflict, but doesn't allow it to apply to casualties from Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia and the Gulf War.

dileas

tess


----------



## brihard

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> No, that is not why the date was picked.  It was based on the proposal date of the medal;
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080830.MEDAL30/TPStory/National
> 
> According to Ms. Thorn, the Rideau Hall spokeswoman, there is a five-year retroactive eligibility for awards, counting from the time an honour is initially proposed. That allows the Sacrifice Medal to be backdated to the start of the Afghan conflict, but doesn't allow it to apply to casualties from Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia and the Gulf War.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Uh, Tess, five years doesn't bring us back to the start of Afghanistan. Five years retroactive brings us back to '03, while our first fatalities were incurred in April '02, and likely we had wounded prior to that. 

The Sacrifice medal is retroactive to October 7th, 2001. Even if you go by the date the first official proposal for the medal was, made, I doubt it so exactly fits with five years after the start of the invasion. The medal criteria has been set so that it starts with Afghanistan, you are correct in that, but the normal five year term has clearly been jiggled a little bit so as to accomplish this.


----------



## rwgill

It is retroactive, 5 years before the proposal date.  This thread began Sep 27, 2006.  The effective date for the medal in Oct 7, 2001..................5 years before this thread began and the idea was conceived.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Brihard said:
			
		

> Uh, Tess, five years doesn't bring us back to the start of Afghanistan. Five years retroactive brings us back to '03, while our first fatalities were incurred in April '02, and likely we had wounded prior to that.
> 
> The Sacrifice medal is retroactive to October 7th, 2001. Even if you go by the date the first official proposal for the medal was, made, I doubt it so exactly fits with five years after the start of the invasion. The medal criteria has been set so that it starts with Afghanistan, you are correct in that, but the normal five year term has clearly been jiggled a little bit so as to accomplish this.



Well Brihard,

Then we have proven that the the Rideau Hall spokeswoman, Ms. Thorn, is misinformed.

If the "Spokesperson" is wrong, well wouldn't you agree, that not much thought was put into this medal after all?

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Well Brihard,
> 
> Then we have proven that the the Rideau Hall spokeswoman, Ms. Thorn, is misinformed.
> 
> If the "Spokesperson" is wrong, well wouldn't you agree, that not much thought was put into this medal after all?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



No Tess, nothing says she was misinformed.

Here's what you quoted:



> According to Ms. Thorn, the Rideau Hall spokeswoman, there is a five-year retroactive eligibility for awards, counting *from the time an honour is initially proposed*. That allows the Sacrifice Medal to be backdated to the start of the Afghan conflict, but doesn't allow it to apply to casualties from Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia and the Gulf War.



This Medal could have been backdated 5 years from the date that it was initially proposed. That initial proposal occured in September 2006 - ergo this medal could have been backdated until September 2001 (thus that 5 year max limit for backdating as per your quote above). Instead though of backdating it the full 5 years (as they could have), they backdated it to begin on 7 Oct 2001 - the date that we formally committed to the current mission in Afghanistan.

It was backdated 4 years and 11 months - instead of the full 5 that it could have been. And in most circles, a backdating of 4 years and 11 months is pretty close to saying "5 years".

Nothing here infers that Ms. Thorn is misinformed. Your quote could says it "_could_ be backdated 5 years from the date of proposal" not that it "_will_ be backdated 5 years from the date of proposal", and in this case --- it's a month shy of that 5 years. The date was obviously chosen based on the start of the Afghanistan Mission - which just happened to be within the 5 year time limit.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Alright,

Then I stand corrected.

My bad.

dileas

tess


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Army Vern....Bang on the nail head.
   The minister proposed this and cut the paper work back in 05/06 the date the actual proposal hit the desk would be the date as you have indicated. He and I spoke on the subject and I voiced my concern about the medal. I suggested the wound strip was better just not identifiable after one got out and that should be addressed with a lapel pin such as in the WW 1  and 2 WIA issues. He pressed my hand firm and said it was his medal idea and he was pushing it through. I then asked him how many soldiers with wound stripes he had asked there view on it, he ignored me and walked away.
   My humble view would be to have kept the wound strip and issued a lapel pin. This change is very American and takes us away from the traditional Canadian history of the wounded soldier. I for one will be proud of my wound strip as I received it under the old rules (first generation) YUGO award which were much more stringent then the later wound strip awards and the now current rather open US style award for the medal.

3rd Horseman   

Edit: So I guess what it means in the future is that we will all be old men, sitting around the Legion ...mess and pulling out our wound strips/medals in public and seeing who's is bigger...I mean better.


----------



## geo

Hmmm comparing scars again 3rd ?


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Geo nice to hear from you, I could not resist the little male camp fire humour!
  After the big CAV motorcycle accident in Gagetown last month I have a few more scares also to add to the body history. No medal for that just Road Rash Crest for the biker vest.

3rd


----------



## armyvern

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Army Vern....Bang on the nail head.
> The minister proposed this and cut the paper work back in 05/06 the date the actual proposal hit the desk would be the date as you have indicated. He and I spoke on the subject and I voiced my concern about the medal. I suggested the wound strip was better just not identifiable after one got out and that should be addressed with a lapel pin such as in the WW 1  and 2 WIA issues. He pressed my hand firm and said it was his medal idea and he was pushing it through. I then asked him how many soldiers with wound stripes he had asked there view on it, he ignored me and walked away.
> My humble view would be to have kept the wound strip and issued a lapel pin. This change is very American and takes us away from the traditional Canadian history of the wounded soldier. I for one will be proud of my wound strip as I received it under the old rules (first generation) YUGO award which were much more stringent then the later wound strip awards and the now current rather open US style award for the medal.
> 
> 3rd Horseman
> 
> Edit: So I guess what it means in the future is that we will all be old men, sitting around the Legion ...mess and pulling out our wound strips/medals in public and seeing who's is bigger...I mean better.



You're alive!!

After seeing you in Moncton at Atlanticade ... and after all the Sturgis talk there ... I never saw one of the guys --- and I watched out for them all in Sturgis too. Perhaps I just wasn't seeing straight - or seeing at all.  8)

Rest assured, even though this medal is now official --- I'm sure that most of us, like me, will still recognize the significance of those Wound Stripes and appreciate the sacrifice that those of you who will be continuing to wear them due to non-elegibility for the medal have made on behalf of your Country. You all have my respect. And, in my eyes --- are no lesser than your Comrades-in-Arms who will be receiving the medals. There but by the grace of God go I.

Take care of yourself.


----------



## forgotten

I do qualify for the wound stripe..However according the person i talked to in Ottawa is "yes you do however there is a time limit..if I gave it to you I would have to give it to every relative back to the Boer war"..That is not the reply i wanted..I was shocked..secondly "Bravo Zulu" to Ottawa striking a new medal called the sacrifice medal..However..only backdating to 2001..that's a shame what about all the people who were wounded or killed "in the service of peace". I feel that peacekeepers are being pushed to the side again..I don't mean to sound like I am complaining..I certainly agree that the people that are serving in Afghanistan do deserve this medal..But as a former serving member who was wounded in action i am deeply hurt..What is my recourse of action?...Thanking you in advance..


----------



## armyvern

forgotten said:
			
		

> I do qualify for the wound stripe..However according the person i talked to in Ottawa is "yes you do however there is a time limit..if I gave it to you I would have to give it to every relative back to the Boer war"..That is not the reply i wanted..I was shocked..secondly "Bravo Zulu" to Ottawa striking a new medal called the sacrifice medal..However..only backdating to 2001..that's a shame what about all the people who were wounded or killed "in the service of peace". I feel that peacekeepers are being pushed to the side again..I don't mean to sound like I am complaining..I certainly agree that the people that are serving in Afghanistan do deserve this medal..But as a former serving member who was wounded in action i am deeply hurt..What is my recourse of action?...Thanking you in advance..



Your CoA is the Wound Stripe. Inured soldiers who sustained their wounds prior to 07 Oct 2001, who are entitled to wear the Wound Stripe may still do so.


----------



## forgotten

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Your CoA is the Wound Stripe. Inured soldiers who sustained their wounds prior to 07 Oct 2001, who are entitled to wear the Wound Stripe may still do so.



Ok fair enough but I do not have a wound stripe and i prefer to get through the official channels and will not purchase it..in any way..I hope eventually that I will get it officially..BTW this happened in feb 16 1977 on OP Stavros Cyprus


----------



## armyvern

forgotten said:
			
		

> Ok fair enough but I do not have a wound stripe and i prefer to get through the official channels and will not purchase it..in any way..I hope eventually that I will get it officially..BTW this happened in feb 16 1977 on OP Stavros Cyprus



If you believe that you are so entitled, and you have not been awarded it -- I suggest that you speak to your immediate supervisor and get them on it. Your Chain of Command needs to look after this, it's not something that you do on your own.

Freedom of Information Access request for your Service and Medical records.

I believe then, that the normal CoA is to arrange to have it formally presented to you via Legion or other means etc should entitlement to the Wound Stripe be verifiable.


----------



## forgotten

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If you believe that you are so entitled, and you have not been awarded it -- I suggest that you speak to your immediate supervisor and get them on it. Your Chain of Command needs to look after this, it's not something that you do on your own.
> 
> Freedom of Information Access request for your Service and Medical records.
> 
> I believe then, that the normal CoA is to arrange to have it formally presented to you via Legion or other means etc should entitlement to the Wound Stripe be verifiable.



Well what I plan to do is get a hold of my VAC person who works with me and discuss it with her, as I was released medically because of it..a combination of results due to the incident I think that would be my best bet


----------



## rwgill

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The date was obviously chosen based on the start of the Afghanistan Mission - which just happened to be within the 5 year time limit.


Ok, I have to ask you since you probably have the answer ;D

This medal was only back dated 5 years, but the SSM (1984) with RANGER bar goes back to 1947.  NATO 1951, PEACE 1947, ALERT 1958.  What gives?  One can only be back dated 5 years, while another 40 years?


----------



## forgotten

rwgill said:
			
		

> OK, I have to ask you since you probably have the answer ;D
> 
> This medal was only back dated 5 years, but the SSM (1984) with RANGER bar goes back to 1947.  NATO 1951, PEACE 1947, ALERT 1958.  What gives?  One can only be back dated 5 years, while another 40 years?



Because..OHHHH My heaven forbid that we actually had peacekeepers wounded on peacekeeping duties and it would tarnish our image on the international or national version of what has actually happened over the years.. in peacekeeping?? Cover up me thinks?? I think this is enough and this has got to stop and enough of this!! Sooo what is the next step..I am waiting for a call from "The Center" tomorrow this should be enlightening and as well i contacted the Ombudsman...more to follow..message ends!!


----------



## armyvern

rwgill said:
			
		

> Ok, I have to ask you since you probably have the answer ;D
> 
> This medal was only back dated 5 years, but the SSM (1984) with RANGER bar goes back to 1947.  NATO 1951, PEACE 1947, ALERT 1958.  What gives?  One can only be back dated 5 years, while another 40 years?



I'm thinking that one could only be backdated 5 years because there was previous (ie existsing) recognition; in this case - the Wound Stripe was the authorized and awarded as "recognition" for wounds received.

In the case of the SSM (with bars you have listed), the backdating went as far back as necessary to ensure that everyone was recognized for those applicable events/activities. _They had *not * been recognized officially by any means prior to the introduction of the SSM._ If the SSM were NOT backdated that far --- then pers would have gone "unrecognized" while others would have been recognized.

With the Sacrifice Medal -- wounded pers prior to the 5 year limit are *not* going unrecognized - they are just "officially recognized" via different means.

Forgotten,

Peacekeeping?? Cover up?? Please  ... Korean Vets also got the Wound Stripe; ergo the reason that many of today's wounded wanted to see the Wound Stripe remain as "their" recognition for their injuries sustained in Afghanistan too --- history & tradition.


----------



## rwgill

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> In the case of the SSM (with bars you have listed), the backdating went as far back as necessary to ensure that everyone was recognized for those applicable events/activities. _They had *not * been recognized officially by any means prior to the introduction of the SSM._ If the SSM were NOT backdated that far --- then pers would have gone "unrecognized" while others would have been recognized.
> 
> With the Sacrifice Medal -- wounded pers prior to the 5 year limit are *not* going unrecognized - they are just "officially recognized" via different means.


Thanks Vern,

Though I personally do not agree with the policy, I like your answer.

Side note, I have approached my MP about this.  Who knows what will happen.


----------



## forgotten

rwgill said:
			
		

> Thanks Vern,
> 
> Though I personally do not agree with the policy, I like your answer.
> 
> Side note, I have approached my MP about this.  Who knows what will happen.


I hope I am not out of line here..if i am I apologize...its just that its so frustrating when one group is recognized and not the group as a whole per-say..just a lot going on in the "Veterans" world between this, the age 65 and sisip claw back etc..it can a bit over whelming and seems no one is listening or cares..


----------



## forgotten

OK I just got a call from the center in Ottawa..She informed me that they are going to work on getting me either the wound stripe or if possible the sacrifice medal..It was agreed that its only backdated to 2001 and unfair...So more to follow..I guess i stired up a hornets nest..


----------



## armyvern

forgotten said:
			
		

> OK I just got a call from the center in Ottawa..She informed me that they are going to work on getting me either the wound stripe or if possible the sacrifice medal..It was agreed that its only backdated to 2001 and unfair...So more to follow..I guess i stired up a hornets nest..



Well, in all fairness --- you should have been presented the Wound Stripe long ago (according to details you've given here). So sure, The Centre would certainly think it unfair that you didn't receive such if entitled as do I. 

Really, I think the only hornet's nest that you've managed to stir up is that "Why the hell didn't he receive recognition for his wounds when they occured? Why did he fall through the cracks?" And, how many others are in a similar situation in that they were not awarded the wound stripe to signify wounds receive from hostile forces during our "peacekeeping" years? Tess received his, you did not. I'm hoping that your current situation is the exception ... and that Tess' is the rule rather than the other way around.

But The Centre isn't going to get you the Sacrifice Medal; you don't qualify as per the dates. I do hope though that they are able to get you the Wound Stripe that you should have been awarded long ago. And again, when I see a soldier with a Wound Stripe OR a soldier with a Sacrifice medal --- my respect is just the same for both --- both are volunteers who suffered wounds as a result of hostile action while serving their nation honourably.


----------



## forgotten

Ya she wanted me to give details..god..it was painful!! She said that"s OK she can get the information from VAC..But i sucked it up..but now I have one hell of a migrane..An Thx for your respect and god bless you!!


----------



## coffee4ourtroops

MCPL. Jeff Walsh, the son of one of our Admins, Ben Walsh was killed in Afghanistan by Friendly Fire. After consulting with the government, He, and now I was told because he was killed by friendly fire he will not be receiving the new medal. 

The papers haven't picked up on this yet, but we hope to make it big new soon. 

I have started a petition to get this decision reversed, as a canadian, and a canadian that supports our troops I find this utterly disrespectful of our government to treat a few families different because they weren't killed by the enemy.

 To: Govenor General of Canada, Canadian Government 
It has come to our attention that some soldiers killed after October 7, 2001 will not be receiving the Sacrifice Medal, due to the way in which they were killed. We the undersigned strongly believe all Canadian Soldiers killed or injured in the line of duty, no matter the cause, be given the newly minted Sacrifice Medal. 

Sincerely, 

The Undersigned 


CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION 

http://www.petitiononline.com/EHDASM/petition.html









Note: The above petition was started by Dan Gray, he can be contacted at remembrancepoet@hotmail.com after he recieved news from Benjamin walsh about his son not getting this medal.


----------



## Sig_Des

I understand that this is an issue that may be near and dear to many, however & unfortunately, wouldn't QR&0 19.10 apply?



> 19.10 – COMBINATIONS FORBIDDEN
> 
> No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:
> 
> (a) combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
> (b) sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
> (c) obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces.


----------



## gaspasser

Sadly, I concur BW.  I've always been told never to sign any petition against the government for which we stand and defend.
Sorry Dave.  :'(


----------



## helpup

I put Jeff through BSL, and worked with him while he was a Royal.  I agree it is disgusting but my own understandings of the rules and what was brought up here would preclude signing the petition.  Food for thought on the next bull session with the CoC. Good luck in getting it changed though


----------



## remembrancepoet

Hello:

My name is Dan Gray, I have started this petition. You are right, no active member of the Canadian forces can sign this petition. But there is no rule stating that family and loved ones cannot. I'm glad if you can support it, whether you name is on the petition or not. It's the principle of the problem. There is a facebook page for this situation too. It can be found at,

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43525572680


----------



## brihard

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I understand that this is an issue that may be near and dear to many, however & unfortunately, wouldn't QR&0 19.10 apply?



Wow. I actually wasn't even aware of that QR&O.

Guess you learn something every day.


----------



## Loachman

The QR&O quoted would likely not withstand a Charter challenge.

That being said, petitions have extremely little influence on governments, as many people will sign any petition waved in front of them.

Letters to MPs can have effect, especially if enough are sent/received.

Letters to the editors of newspapers can also affect public opinion, and thereby have an effect on governments.

Members of the CF still enjoy the rights of all Citizens as laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is several layers of authority above QR&O.

Those rights include:

"FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. 

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 

"(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; "

That being said, it is not a good idea to identify oneself as a serving member. Simple name, address, and phone number are all that are generall necessary for identification on letters to editors.

You are free to contact your MP on any matter of personal concern.

"The government for which we stand and defend" is a repugnant notion. It is the people and nation, of which the government is the protector and manager of certain affairs, for which "we stand and defend". Only in dictatorships do the armed forces exist to defend the government.


----------



## HollywoodHitman

Loachman said:
			
		

> The QR&O quoted would likely not withstand a Charter challenge.
> 
> That being said, petitions have extremely little influence on governments, as many people will sign any petition waved in front of them.
> 
> Letters to MPs can have effect, especially if enough are sent/received.
> 
> Letters to the editors of newspapers can also affect public opinion, and thereby have an effect on governments.
> 
> Members of the CF still enjoy the rights of all Citizens as laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is several layers of authority above QR&O.
> 
> Those rights include:
> 
> "FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
> 
> "2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> 
> "(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; "
> 
> That being said, it is not a good idea to identify oneself as a serving member. Simple name, address, and phone number are all that are generall necessary for identification on letters to editors.
> 
> You are free to contact your MP on any matter of personal concern.
> 
> "The government for which we stand and defend" is a repugnant notion. It is the people and nation, of which the government is the protector and manager of certain affairs, for which "we stand and defend". Only in dictatorships do the armed forces exist to defend the government.



Well said.


----------



## gaspasser

Sorry, wrong choice of words but I had that thought in mind when I wrote it.  
I stand corrected.


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman said:
			
		

> The QR&O quoted would likely not withstand a Charter challenge.



Note the key words in the QR&O - "Without authority". While there is no policy I know of in place, those words suggest that a proper request through the chain of command (to the MND, as the authority for that particular QR&O) could see authority being granted.

Remember, article 1 of the Charter explicitly permits "reasonable limits".

Reasonable limits have been supported by the courts (for example, limits on freedom of expression during election campaigns - a private citizen isn't allowed to spend $1M on private ads); certain reasonable restrictions on CF members such as this would likely pass muster.


----------



## leroi

It's a grievous travesty to make such a distinction. 

Can any of you serving members explain what the logic is for the distinction? Cause, I just don't follow ... ???

He died in the line of duty, serving his country; why deny him honour because his end came by friendly fire ... 

Sorry, if I seem kinda dense on this one.

(Petition signed.)


----------



## coffee4ourtroops

Letter from the Gov't  (Posted with permission of Benjamin Walsh)

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Walsh,
Your inquiry submitted to Rideau Hall regarding the Sacrifice Medal has been transmitted to this office for response.
First, I would like to offer you my most sincere condolences for the tragic loss of you son MCpl Jeffrey Scott Walsh.
Eligibility for the Sacrifice Medal, as that of the Wound Stripe which it replaces, is limited to those wounds and deaths which are the result of hostile action. As such, all accidents, diseases, naturals deaths and other similar instances, even if they occur within a theatre of operations, are not eligible.
Based on the information we have on file regarding your son, it appears that his tragic death was caused by the accidental discharge of a weapon by one of his colleagues and was not related to enemy action. 
This new medal, like its predecessor the Wound Stripe and many other similar foreign decorations such as the American Purple Heart, is solely intended to recognize those who die or are wounded in combat. 
While your son is not eligible for a posthumous award of the Sacrifice Medal, I hope these explanations will help you better understand the purpose of this new medal. However, we take comfort in knowing that you Mrs. Walsh and your son's common law spouse have been presented with the Memorial Cross as a memento of your personal loss and sacrifice.
In closing, while this may not be the answer you were hoping for, I can assure you that your son's life and service will not be forgotten.

Yours sincerely,

NAME EDITED


----------



## PuckChaser

The only logic I can see is that the injury was not caused by enemy fire. However, the incident occured in a special duty area in the presence of an armed enemy, so there should be an allotment for such.

With the letter above, it seems that those killed in vehicle rollovers or traffic accidents while on operation "outside the wire" are ineligible as well, which is a travesty.


----------



## KevinB

Well FYI - the Purple Heart which the Sacrifice Medal seems to have been borrowed (as the change from the wound stripe - which had two different 'grades') must be received from hostile action.

 Blue on Blue is not considered hostile.


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The only logic I can see is that the injury was not caused by enemy fire. However, the incident occured in a special duty area in the presence of an armed enemy, so there should be an allotment for such.
> 
> With the letter above, it seems that those killed in vehicle rollovers or traffic accidents while on operation "outside the wire" are ineligible as well, which is a travesty.



As would be ineligible, the family of Corporal Benoit Chevalier, who was killed in a plane crash while serving his country with the MFO in the Sinai on 06 May 2007. This was not the result of enemy action.

I am most interested to see how the CF and  DHH treat the case of Major Paeta Hess Von Kruedner. He was killed as a direct result of conflict between two opposing parties - neither of which was supposed to be his enemy. Interesting that it was a UN Op rather than a "war"... Tess qualified for his wound stripe, I'm thinking that would mean that Major VonH is fully entitled to receive this Sacrifice Medal posthumously as well. 

Both of the above have occured within the 5 year time period and based upon the policy criteria for the Sacrifice Medal - one is ineleigible and the other may/may not be.

And, can we please (at least on this site) STOP referring only to Afghanistan? We have CF personnel serving on many operations (and dying too while serving their country on those ops). Please.


----------



## dapaterson

Not certain where the criteria appear in the Canada Gazette (otherwise I'd post a link), but the CANFORGEN has some details on eligibility.  Maj HvK was killed by hostile action, so he should be posthumously eligible.

CANFORGEN 163/08 excerpt follows:



> ELIGIBLE CASES INCLUDE:
> 
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS DUE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK, MINE OR BOMB DISPOSAL DUTY, DIRECT OR INDIRECT FIRE, RESCUE DUTY, COLLISION OF AN AIRCRAFT, VEHICLE OR VESSEL, ON THE CONDITION THAT THE OCCURRENCE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO A HOSTILE ACTION
> 
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FRIENDLY FIRE AIMED AT A HOSTILE FORCE OR WHAT IS OR WAS THOUGHT TO BE A HOSTILE FORCE
> 
> 
> WOUNDS THAT REQUIRE NOT LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS OF TREATMENT IN HOSPITAL, OR AN EQUIVALENT COURSE OF TREATMENT, AND THAT WERE CAUSED BY
> 
> (1) EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN AIRCRAFT, VEHICLE OR VESSEL BEING DESTROYED OR DISABLED BY A HOSTILE ACTION,
> 
> (2) HARSH TREATMENT OR NEGLECT WHILE A CAPTIVE OF A HOSTILE FORCE, OR
> 
> (3) USE OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL AGENTS BY A HOSTILE FORCE
> 
> 
> DEATH CAUSED BY
> 
> (1) EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN AIRCRAFT, VEHICLE OR VESSEL BEING DESTROYED OR DISABLED BY A HOSTILE ACTION
> 
> (2) HARSH TREATMENT OR NEGLECT WHILE A CAPTIVE OF A HOSTILE FORCE, OR
> 
> (3) USE OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL AGENTS BY A HOSTILE FORCE, OR
> 
> 
> MENTAL DISORDERS THAT ARE DIAGNOSED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE QUOTE DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS UNQUOTE, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, AND BASED ON A REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED MENTAL HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER, ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO A HOSTILE OR PERCEIVED HOSTILE ACTION
> 
> 
> INELIGIBLE CASES INCLUDE:
> 
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS DUE TO EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS, OR CAUSED BY ACTS OF GOD
> 
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS CAUSED BY AN ACCIDENT ARISING FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT IN A THEATRE OF OPERATIONS BUT WERE NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO A HOSTILE ACTION
> 
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS CAUSED BY DISEASE,OR
> 
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS THAT WERE SELF-INFLICTED OR CAUSED BY THE VICTIM S NEGLIGENCE



Edit to add:  DHR link:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhr-ddhr/chart/eng/chart_display_e.asp?cat=3&ref=SM


----------



## Loachman

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With the letter above, it seems that those killed in vehicle rollovers or traffic accidents while on operation "outside the wire" are ineligible as well, which is a travesty.



Why?

What would the difference be between that and an accident inside the wire?

Is the wire the dividing line between eligibility and ineligibility?

Would, then, a REMF like me (in the capacity in which I am deploying) be ineligible if whacked in a rocket attack inside the wire?

You seem to recognize that a line has to be drawn somewhere. The line chosen is hostile action, the same as for the wound stripe and Purple Heart.


----------



## PuckChaser

I would say that it is a slippery slope, no matter how you look at it. Someone's toes will get stepped on with the wording. I used the vehicle accident as an example, but I do believe outside the wire puts you into "the face of an armed enemy" very much more than working in camp. However, getting hit by a rocket inside the wire is an injury that resulted from hostile action.


----------



## remembrancepoet

OK, hostile action, or not hostile action, Outside the wire or Inside the wire, the point is, A family of more then one soldier is not going to get a medal that seems to be made exactely for them. I don't care if you go to a war zone, and get killed by falling down a well or off a communications tower ( both of which have happened ) that should not be grounds not to get a medal for dying or being wounded after October 7, 2001. should it?? It's the precident that it is setting that is dangerous, not just the individual case.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

remembrancepoet said:
			
		

> OK, hostile action, or not hostile action, Outside the wire or Inside the wire, the point is, A family of more then one soldier is not going to get a medal that seems to be made exactely for them. I don't care if you go to a war zone, and get killed by falling down a well or off a communications tower ( both of which have happened ) that should not be grounds not to get a medal for dying or being wounded after October 7, 2001. should it?? It's the precident that it is setting that is dangerous, not just the individual case.



I feel for all the families that have lost loved ones.  Unfortunately, there does have to be a 'line' drawn somewhere, and no matter where that is, there are always people who are less than happy with it.  My own personal thoughts on the matter, as a serving member, is that we have a medal that does get presented to families, the same one my 7 year old daughter will get, if I die in the service of Canada in circumstances that do not involve hostile action with the enemy, The Memorial Cross.  While this isn't a 'perfect' solution is...I wonder, in circumstances such as these, involving the death of loved ones in the service our their country, what perfectly bestows upon them the honour they are all so deserving of?  I have no answer to that, but I know I will think of each and every one of them on November 11th, as our nation pauses to remember those who gave all in the service of Canada, at home or abroad.    

From Day 1, I personally thought the choice of the word "Sacrifice" Medal was not the best one possible.


----------



## coffee4ourtroops

Without the hostile action of the Taliban directed at the Afgani Gov't and people, we would not be in Afghanistan- so as such all deaths and injuries are a direct result of Hostile action.


----------



## armyvern

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I would say that it is a slippery slope, no matter how you look at it. Someone's toes will get stepped on with the wording. I used the vehicle accident as an example, but I do believe outside the wire puts you into "the face of an armed enemy" very much more than working in camp. However, getting hit by a rocket inside the wire is an injury that resulted from hostile action.



Which is why I pointed out that pers should NOT be thinking of this medal as "an Afghanistan thing" in terms of service either. It is applicable to all our missions, not just that one. "War" is not a condition --- "hostile action" is and there is a very big difference.

Take Major Von K for example. He was "inside his wire", not at war, and had "no armed enemy" against him --- yet he still died as a result of hostile actions. Be very wary of compatrmentalizing this Medal to "outside the wire in Afghanstan" --- THAT is NOT one of the criterion.


----------



## Armymedic

I concur with Vern.

I also think the way the medal being awarded "as result of hostile action" is correct. 

As much as it sucks, there must be some sort of criteria. Otherwise, you're just getting a medal for getting hurt or dying while in the service of the CF....


----------



## armyvern

remembrancepoet said:
			
		

> OK, hostile action, or not hostile action, Outside the wire or Inside the wire, the point is, A family of more then one soldier is not going to get a medal that seems to be made exactely for them. I don't care if you go to a war zone, and get killed by falling down a well or off a communications tower ( both of which have happened ) that should not be grounds not to get a medal for dying or being wounded after October 7, 2001. should it?? It's the precident that it is setting that is dangerous, not just the individual case.



This Medal is not setting any kind of precedent.

The very same criteria were in effect for eligibility for awarding of the "Wound Stripe." This medal is superceeding the Wound Stripe as the new award for those injured after 07 Oct 2001. Service in Afghanistan is not a requirement. Wounding or death caused by hostile action is; just as it was for the Wound Stripe.

The same soldiers who don't qualify for the Sacrifice Medal --- didn't qualify for the Wound Stripe either. There's no precedent being set by these criteria.


----------



## aesop081

Dave Murphy said:
			
		

> Without the hostile action of the Taliban directed at the Afgani Gov't and people, we would not be in Afghanistan- so as such all deaths and injuries are a direct result of Hostile action.



So if i roll my ankle and break it in Afghanistan , its as a result of hostile action ?

I wouldnt have been in Afghanistan to break my ankle of it hadnt been for the TB 

Get to know the difference between "direct result " and "indirect result"


----------



## pizzathahut

Joined the FB group and signed the petition.  
P.S.
Can I post this content (the letter you received) and link to the petition on my new project?
http://cftoday.info


----------



## the 48th regulator

Sacrifice
Main Entry: 1sac•ri•fice  
Pronunciation: \ˈsa-krə-ˌfīs, also -fəs or -ˌfīz\ 
Function: noun 
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin sacrificium, from sacr-, sacer + facere to make — more at do 
Date: 13th century 
1: an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2: something offered in sacrifice
*3 a: destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b: something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by parents>*
4: loss <goods sold at a sacrifice>
5: sacrifice hit

Obviously, the ones that came up with this medal, and those that decide who receive it, have not truly investigated what the term means.

Truly disgusting.   What is next?  Are we going to have Canadian Forces CSI landing on the ground to ensure all medals and decoration are worthy of their meaning?

Pure Phucking Boolshite.

He sacrificed his life, on the battle front, and because the rounds were made, and fired from a friendly nation, his death was not a sacrifice for our mission there.

Let the ones that are involved in the decision process, be allowed to re-enact the day to see what they feel is a true sacrifice.

dileas

tess


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> From Day 1, I personally thought the choice of the word "Sacrifice" Medal was not the best one possible.


----------



## George Wallace

Dave Murphy said:
			
		

> Without the hostile action of the Taliban directed at the Afgani Gov't and people, we would not be in Afghanistan- so as such all deaths and injuries are a direct result of Hostile action.



I have read this so far, and I know this will go on for many more pages, because some will feel that they are deserving of a medal for which they do not meet the criteria.

Taking the logic of the poster above, and a couple of others who are saying the same thing, I have a question to put to them:  Do you think that a person who commits suicide in Afghanistan should also be eligible for this Medal?

Following your arguments to present it to people who have accidents or Blue on Blue incidents, do you apply those to the members who have been killed in Blue on Blue accidents in Workup Training for these deployments?

I say that the criteria have been drawn up, and just because you don't like them, you should honour them for what they signify or you dishonour the legitimate recipients of the Award.  The Honours and Awards system is not set up to give out "Boy Scout Merit Badges".  It is set up to create meaningful Awards to recognize the extraordinary contributions of their Recipients, not hand out trinkets en-mass.


----------



## pizzathahut

I myself think as long as the soldier is in Combat Operations and under direct fire, should merit a consideration for the medal. Whether hit by friendlies or adversaries should not be a contributing factor. But someone on a FOB doing routine work and gets hit by a mortar... well... that would be a different situation, different Honorable mention. Am I wrong? It is a difficult area to draw a line.


----------



## George Wallace

pizzathahut said:
			
		

> I myself think as long as the soldier is in Combat Operations and under direct fire, should merit a consideration for the medal. Whether hit by friendlies or adversaries should not be a contributing factor. But someone on a FOB doing routine work and gets hit by a mortar... well... that would be a different situation, different Honorable mention. Am I wrong? It is a difficult area to draw a line.



 ???

You are one confused puppy.  You want to give the medal to anyone in a War Zone who is under direct fire, friendly or not, should get the medal, and then you turn around and say that someone in a FOB who is wounded by a mortar (Fired by the enemy, I assume) is different and not deserving of the medal, only a mention in dispatches.

You obviously don't have a full grasp on what the criteria are, nor what is going on in Afghanistan.  Not with that statement anyway.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> You are one confused puppy.  You want to give the medal to anyone in a War Zone who is under direct fire, friendly or not, should get the medal, and then you turn around and say that someone in a FOB who is wounded by a mortar (Fired by the enemy, I assume) is different and not deserving of the medal, only a mention in dispatches.
> 
> You obviously don't have a full grasp on what the criteria are, nor what is going on in Afghanistan.  Not with that statement anyway.



George, I am thinking (maybe wrongly) we have a young and inexperienced poster, based on the info I could see their profile.


----------



## the 48th regulator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have read this so far, and I know this will go on for many more pages, because some will feel that they are deserving of a medal for which they do not meet the criteria.
> 
> Taking the logic of the poster above, and a couple of others who are saying the same thing, I have a question to put to them:  Do you think that a person who commits suicide in Afghanistan should also be eligible for this Medal?
> 
> Following your arguments to present it to people who have accidents or Blue on Blue incidents, do you apply those to the members who have been killed in Blue on Blue accidents in Workup Training for these deployments?
> 
> I say that the criteria have been drawn up, and just because you don't like them, you should honour them for what they signify or you dishonour the legitimate recipients of the Award.  The Honours and Awards system is not set up to give out "Boy Scout Merit Badges".  It is set up to create meaningful Awards to recognize the extraordinary contributions of their Recipients, not hand out trinkets en-mass.



Then I with your reasoning George, do not broadcast his death.  In fact, give him no medals, it was his fault that while fighting the enemy, he died, beacuse of someone else's mistake, therefore his own for incurring his death.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

When he died his family was given the Memorial Cross. He was given a military funeral, The Sacrifice Medal like the wound stripe is for the Wounded not the Deceased. I am not sure where the confusion is coming from.


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> When he died his family was given the Memorial Cross. He was given a military funeral, The Sacrifice Medal like the wound stripe is for the Wounded not the Deceased. I am not sure where the confusion is coming from.



http://www.gg.ca/honours/medals/hon04-sm_e.asp

The Sacrifice Medal was created to recognize a member of the Canadian Forces, a member of an allied force, or a Canadian civilian under the authority of the Canadian Forces who, as of  October 7, 2001, died or was wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of hostile action. 

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

Having re-read Tess post with the highlighted area.....

It woud seem that not recieveing the new medal is directly in contravention of the stated criteria.


EDIT: re did the entire post


----------



## aesop081

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> It woud seem that not recieveing the new medal is directly in contravention of the stated criteria.



Really ?

Did you read the last part of that post.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> as a direct result of hostile action.


----------



## the 48th regulator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> You are one confused puppy.  You want to give the medal to anyone in a War Zone who is under direct fire, friendly or not, should get the medal, and then you turn around and say that someone in a FOB who is wounded by a mortar (Fired by the enemy, I assume) is different and not deserving of the medal, only a mention in dispatches.
> 
> You obviously don't have a full grasp on what the criteria are, nor what is going on in Afghanistan.  Not with that statement anyway.



George,

I think you are the confused puppy.

This fella died, serving his country, in a combat zone, as a combat soldier, during combat operations.  

Yet, he does not qualify for a "Sacrifice" medal?!?

Because his sacrifice was offered, due to friendly fire, that was to be aimed at the same enemy he was fighting? 

We are not talking about a rogue fighter pilot, in colusion with a Canadian soldeir to attack Canadian troops, and he fell victim.

They were in combat, he died due to fire, and he does not qualify?  Give your head a shake, and stop following the godamn ledtter to the tee, for the love of pete.

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Really ?
> 
> Did you read the last part of that post.



So his sacrifice is differentiated by some beurocrats wording of the medal?

Tell me, do you feel in your soul, as a Canadian, he did not Sacrifice his life for you?

Answer me this,  and I will justify the inseption of this amusing medal.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

I should have stayed out of this thread....

The enemy action part was missed by me. 



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> during combat operations.



No Tess he wasn't he was on a presence Patrol out of PBW, there was no enemy contact that day in that area




			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Yet, he does not qualify for a "Sacrifice" medal?!?



No Tess he doesn't.




			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Because his sacrifice was offered, due to friendly fire, that was to be aimed at the same enemy he was fighting?



There was no enemy to be shot at, they were not under contact when the incident occurred




			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> They were in combat, he died due to fire, and he does not qualify? Give your head a shake, and stop following the godamn letter to the tee, for the love of pete.



Again There was no armed enemy at the time of the incident. It was a presence Patrol and an accident happened with a weapon system


----------



## George Wallace

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> George,
> 
> I think you are the confused puppy.
> 
> This fella died, serving his country, in a combat zone, as a combat soldier, during combat operations.
> 
> Yet, he does not qualify for a "Sacrifice" medal?!?
> 
> Because his sacrifice was offered, due to friendly fire, that was to be aimed at the same enemy he was fighting?
> 
> We are not talking about a rogue fighter pilot, in colusion with a Canadian soldeir to attack Canadian troops, and he fell victim.
> 
> They were in combat, he died due to fire, and he does not qualify?  Give your head a shake, and stop following the godamn ledtter to the tee, for the love of pete.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Put the drink down.  Step away from the bar.  Now read my response to the twit who is confused and saying that the guy injured/killed in the FOB by a mortar doesn't qualify.  Obviously he has no clue what he is talking about, because he is giving the medal to guys under friendly fire.  

READ THE POST AGAIN!


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I should have stayed out of this thread....
> 
> The enemy action part was missed by me.
> 
> No Tess he wasn't he was on a presence Patrol out of PBW, there was no enemy contact that day in that area
> 
> 
> No Tess he doesn't.
> 
> 
> There was no enemy to be shot at, they were not under contact when the incident occurred
> 
> 
> Again There was no armed enemy at the time of the incident. It was a presence Patrol and an accident happened with a weapon system





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Put the drink down.  Step away from the bar.  Now read my response to the twit who is confused and saying that the guy injured/killed in the FOB by a mortar doesn't qualify.  Obviously he has no clue what he is talking about, because he is giving the medal to guys under friendly fire.
> 
> READ THE POST AGAIN!



Hmm,

My bad,

Then I guess his sacrifice, then does not deserve a sacrifice medal.

Pfft, once again I prove my point about this poncy piece of political tin.

And here I was the champion of it, when word came out about it.

Well, as a person who was _the first _ awarded the neat threaded patch, since the Korean war, I guess I am honored.  In fact, I will cut one of mine off, and send it to the Walsh family.  As I recognize the sacrifice of his duty.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

I have one of those fancy gold ribbons too, so don't preach sacrifice to me....

The criteria states ENEMY ACTION.....He died serving his country no one would or will ever take that away from him or his family. The medal they received for his sacrifice was and is the Memorial Cross.


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I have one of those fancy gold ribbons too, so don't preach sacrifice to me....
> 
> The criteria states ENEMY ACTION.....He died serving his country no one would or will ever take that away from him or his family. The medal they received for his sacrifice was and is the Memorial Cross.



I beg your pardon??

Am I talking about a medal for his family, I am talking about a medal for him.

You want to play the criteria game, fill yer boots.   So you feel he does not deserve the medal?  Why, because it was friendly fire?

Explain.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

Well for the record Jeff was my friend....

And Yes I don't think he should get this medal because the criteria states ENEMY ACTION, just like if I was in KAF or on Patrol and there was no contact and there was an accidental weapons malfunction which resulted in my death I do not meet the criteria for thhis medal.

Hell I don't even want this medal now! and I am eligible


----------



## Fusaki

Anything involving hostile action overseas - in my mind - deserves a sacrifice medal or a wound stripe. That includes TICs, mines and IEDs, rocket and mortar attacks, and _friendly fire incidents_ (given that it is still hostile action, albiet misguided). Accidents, on the other hand, are different. One can be killed by an ND, die in a LAV rollover, or fall from a tower anywhere - even in Canada. Tragic? Yes. But it's very different from hostile violence.

The difference between those who should be awarded a wound stripe and those who should not is the hostile intent behind the mechanism of injury. The wound stripe is in recognition of someone who did (or was attempting to do) his job while someone else was trying to kill him.

Imagine a tornado touching down, flattening your home, and killing your family. Now imagine a gang of thugs coming into your home, killing your family, then burning it down. What chills you more? Thats the example Dave Grossman gives in On Killing to describe the difference in psychology between a life-taking tragedy, and lethal aggression. This - in my mind - makes all the difference.


----------



## aesop081

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So his sacrifice is differentiated by some beurocrats wording of the medal?



Criteria has been set just like any other award in the Canadian system. You are getting too wrapped up in what the medal is called and what the medal is for.


----------



## 1feral1

I signed this, even if I was still a serving CF Mbr, regardless of whatever clause in whatever document, I still would have signed.

I never knew MCPL Jeff Walsh, but found his grave by mere coincidence in Regina, and spoke to one of Jeff's Dad's good mates (former Mountie) named Maurice at Regina's (again just by chance) Leg Bldg on a warm Saskatchewan August afternoon.

For those that would like to be reminded of one sacrifice of a way too many already, pics of Jeff's grave marker in the Soldier's Plot area on the cemetery off Assiboine Ave can be found by searching for him on this site. 

RIP Jeff.

OWDU


----------



## Sito Origami

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Fellow soldiers, serving and like me, out to pasture,
> 
> One thought: the wound stripe was abolished some time before I joined the army in 1957. I know this because we had a couple of guys in my battery circa 1958 who were wounded in Korea and did not wear the badge. (One was known as shrapnel *** because he was hit by a mortar splinter while bending over repairing a break in a line.) The badge was not reinstated until the 1990's and many of you wear it with honour.
> 
> However, unlike the wound stripe, which is a badge, the medal is something that once gazetted can not be taken away with the stroke of a pen. The intent is not to lessen the signficance of the wound stripe, it is to more formally acknowledge your condition.
> 
> I know this is unlikely to change many minds, and I guess I am wasting a post, but I hope some of you will accept the good intenetions behind the institution of the award.



The wound stripe was abolished several times; after the First World War, after the Second World War, etc. During the Second World War, there were many 1914-18 vets who started wearing their old wound stripes again until told to replace them with a single red stripe instead of their gold ones, to distinguish from the freshly wounded of the new war. At some point after 1945, all the wound stripes came down. The wound stripe was apparently never intended as a permanent insignia - given its location on the uniform, and its construction, liken it to the marksmanship badge. If you don't qualify on the range every year, the crossed rifles come down. The wound stripe is in cloth and also easily removed. The new medal will remedy that by being a permanent fixture on the uniform.


----------



## armyvern

Sito Origami said:
			
		

> The wound stripe was abolished several times; after the First World War, after the Second World War, etc. During the Second World War, there were many 1914-18 vets who started wearing their old wound stripes again until told to replace them with a single red stripe instead of their gold ones, to distinguish from the freshly wounded of the new war. At some point after 1945, all the wound stripes came down. The wound stripe was apparently never intended as a permanent insignia - given its location on the uniform, and its construction, liken it to the marksmanship badge. If you don't qualify on the range every year, the crossed rifles come down. The wound stripe is in cloth and also easily removed. The new medal will remedy that by being a permanent fixture on the uniform.



Interesting statement that it was not intended to be a permanent issue.

The awarding (ie presentation and entitlement to wear) a Wound Stripe is kept on the members pers file, and within the members clothing documents ... to confirm his eligibility to wear it should there _*ever * _ be a question as to his entitlement.

Once issued it certainly IS an entitlement that DOES NOT cease like an 'annual qualification" ... and further than that, the entitlement to wear the Wound Stripe continues into retirement. I don't know where you got the idea that it's an up&down award like a marksman qualification --- but you're waaaayyyy off target with that statement.



> *6.1f - Awarding and Recording of Wound Stripes*
> 
> Following the precedent set in the First and Second World Wars, the Canadian Forces (CF) award 'wound stripes' to battlefield casualties, a dress distinction that recognizes a physical or mental injury received as a result of armed conflict. One narrow gold braid stripe will be worn in respect of each occasion an individual is wounded - but NOT for each separate injury.
> 
> This distinction is not to be regarded in the nature of a reward.
> 
> 6.1f.1 - Eligibility
> 
> All ranks of the CF, along with members of foreign military forces on exchange duties with the CF, as well as Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency and contract employees, will be eligible for this distinction.
> 
> A wound stripe recognizes injury directly attributable to hostile action received in honourable circumstances in an operational area, and requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid. _Individuals who are injured in accidents in a special duty area or while employed on domestic provision of service operations or training exercises do not qualify for a wound stripe._ Wound stripes are not issued posthumously.
> 
> 6.1f.2 - Claims and Entitlements
> 
> All CF members who consider that they are entitled to a wound stripe may initiate a claim to their CO. Paragraph 10 of this instruction outlines a list of wounds or injuries that would qualify personnel for an entitlement to a wound stripe.
> 
> 6.1f.3 - Awarding Authority
> 
> The authority to wear a wound stripe is granted by the casualty's unit Commanding Officer (CO). The CO shall verify eligibility, referring doubtful cases directly, by message, to National Defence Headquarters, attention: Director Casualty Support and Administration (NDHQ/DCSA).
> 
> *Wound stripes will be worn on CF uniforms in accordance with A-AD-265-000/AG-001 'Canadian Forces Dress Instructions'. Personnel, who by reason of their service have become entitled to wear a wound stripe, may, at their own option, continue to wear them on civilian clothes after cessation of military service.*
> 
> 6.1f.4 - Presentation
> 
> On verification of eligibility, and as soon as practicable after the injury has been incurred, the casualty's CO, or representative, will formally present the wound stripe to the member. Based on the discretion of the member, the presentation may be done in public or in private. A DND 5266 (01-03) 'Certificate of the Award of Wound Stripe' will also be awarded and given to the individual.





> *Qualification for Wound Stripes*: Wounds or injuries requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid (i.e., treatment at a medical facility of more than 5 days duration, not necessarily consecutive) that are due to hostile actions and would be a qualification for a wound stripe include, but are not limited to:
> Injuries due to blast;
> Injuries due to rescue work in bombed buildings or defences;
> Injuries due to collision of a vessel or a vehicle with a mine;
> Injuries sustained by aircrew or passengers as a result of an aircraft crash, or aircraft damage, or fire in an aircraft, provided that these are due to hostile actions or take place during an operational sortie. Injuries sustained by eligible personnel who rescue, or attempt to rescue, aircrew and passengers in such circumstances would qualify for the wound stripe;
> Injuries due to mine or bomb disposal duties;
> Injuries due to terrorist attack (attempted assassinations, car bombs, etc) by hostile forces when Canadian military forces are the targets. Incidents such as these do not necessarily need to take place in an operational area;
> Wounds or injuries inflicted by our own, allied or coalition forces' projectiles (or parts of them) when these have been fired at real or perceived hostile forces;
> Injuries that require not less than one week's treatment in hospital (or equivalent) as a consequence of:
> exposure at sea in open boats and life rafts directly due to hostile action;
> exposure in the air following attacks on aircraft by hostile forces;
> inadequate or harsh treatment by hostile forces as a result of being captured or detained; or
> the employment of nuclear, biological or chemical agents by hostile forces.
> Operational stress injuries may qualify for a wound stripe if treatment of not less than one week in hospital (or equivalent) is the direct result of a traumatic incident caused by hostile forces in a combat zone.
> Injuries, although not directly due to hostile force actions, if sustained in the combat zone by personnel in direct contact with a hostile force, would also qualify for a wound stripe. For example, injuries sustained as a result of a vehicle accident directly attributable to terrain that needed to be followed due to the tactical situation would qualify for the wound stripe if they required medical treatment beyond local first aid.
> Injuries due to accidents arising out of employment in an operational area, but not directly due to hostile action, e.g. due to collisions between ships at sea, vehicle accidents, flying accidents, handling of lethal weapons, gun explosions, etc, do not qualify for the wound stripe.
> Wounds and/or injuries that are self-inflicted do not qualify for the wound stripe.


----------



## Franky

As a proud Canadian I can only say thank you to all who have fallen in my and my daugher's name...Hunter...

As I tell my daughter every day or so, your freedom came at a cost..never forget..

She may be 11 but she knows..and she and I thank every soldier regardless of rank or position..

thank you all who serve ( or who has)..from a proud mother =)


----------



## Infanteer

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Anything involving hostile action overseas - in my mind - deserves a sacrifice medal or a wound stripe. That includes TICs, mines and IEDs, rocket and mortar attacks, and _friendly fire incidents_ (given that it is still hostile action, albiet misguided). Accidents, on the other hand, are different. One can be killed by an ND, die in a LAV rollover, or fall from a tower anywhere - even in Canada. Tragic? Yes. But it's very different from hostile violence.
> 
> The difference between those who should be awarded a wound stripe and those who should not is the hostile intent behind the mechanism of injury. The wound stripe is in recognition of someone who did (or was attempting to do) his job while someone else was trying to kill him.
> 
> Imagine a tornado touching down, flattening your home, and killing your family. Now imagine a gang of thugs coming into your home, killing your family, then burning it down. What chills you more? Thats the example Dave Grossman gives in On Killing to describe the difference in psychology between a life-taking tragedy, and lethal aggression. This - in my mind - makes all the difference.



Agreed.

The medal was put into place to recognize wounds (mortal or not) taken against hostile action.  Canada has ways of recognizing those that were killed in the line of duty due to other circumstances - notably the memorial cross.

I think we need to agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere lest the clerk in Ottawa put in for a Sacrifice Medal because of a workplace accident like falling from a ladder or something....


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think we need to agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere lest the clerk in Ottawa put in for a Sacrifice Medal because of a workplace accident like falling from a ladder or something....



.....paper cut.


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .....paper cut.



That's an open wound with the possibility of gangrene setting in which would require 7 days or more hospitalization ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> From Day 1, I personally thought the choice of the word "Sacrifice" Medal was not the best one possible.



I think the issue is centric to the naming of this medal, the use of the word sacrifice.

In the case of MCpl Walsh and others who have died on operations who don't meet the criteria for this medal in its present form, they did indeed sacrifice as much as those who will receive the medal. Personally, I don't think anyone is arguing that sacrifice MCpl Walsh made.  I say this because, as I read thru the thread, it might be easy for the OP and those who support his cause to misinterpret that as people present their points.  

IMO, whoever approved the word Sacrifice really, really, really f**ked up.  I can see from the family and loved ones perspective that being told "your son/daughter/husband/wife/brother/sister doesn't meet the eligibility for the Sacrifice Medal" is easily taken as Canada, our Government, or whoever saying "they didn't sacrifice". Because in fact, WE as the military community in this country, know they did. The circumstances were different, but not the sacrifice.  

Whats the point?  Simple.  As everyone picks their teams and starts firing shots, remember some of the folks posting here are close to the family of MCpl Walsh; they are the ones caught in the middle.  IMO.

While I understand that some people have some strong views on this, perhaps remembering we are discussing a case of a Canadian soldier who died serving Canada before hitting the "post" button is a prudent thing to do...


----------



## George Wallace

Eye in The Sky

I have to agree with you that the persons who decided the 'name' of this medal have created an awful lot of angst due to the name and the criteria they placed on the medal.  You have very good points in the respect to the use of the word "Sacrifice".  The name should better reflect the criteria of the medal than the current name does, and perhaps there would not be the controversy we are seeing with people who have "sacrificed" but don't meet the current criteria for this award.


----------



## Fusaki

Maybe then the term "Wound Stripe" or even a "Wound Medal" is better.

To say that one was "Wounded In Afghanistan" is much different then to say that one was "Injured in Afghanistan". While both are are considred to be sacrifices, the word "wounded" implies hostile intent behind the injury.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Maybe then the term "Wound Stripe" or even a "Wound Medal" is better.
> 
> To say that one was "Wounded In Afghanistan" is much different then to say that one was "Injured in Afghanistan". While both are are considred to be sacrifices, the word "wounded" implies hostile intent behind the injury.



But, would that cover those that were killed?


----------



## Infanteer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think the issue is centric the the naming of this medal, the use of the word sacrifice.Whats the point?  Simple.  As everyone picks their teams and starts firing shots, remember some of the folks posting here are close to the family of MCpl Walsh; they are the ones caught in the middle.  IMO.
> 
> While I understand that some people have some strong views on this, perhaps remembering we are discussing a case of a Canadian soldier who died serving Canada before hitting the "post" button is a prudent thing to do...



Excellent point EITS - I also agree with you on the poor choice in names for the medal.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But, would that cover those that were killed?



They were mortally wounded, no.  I believe the Purple Heart works the same.


----------



## tomahawk6

US practice is to award the Purple Heart posthumously to soldiers killed in action. So your suggestion of awarding a Wound Stripe posthumously should be a big GO in my book.



> The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force who, while serving with the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded;


----------



## Scoobs

I recently returned from Afghanistan in May 08 where my primary job was Honours and Awards, amongst others, such as sharing in the task of casualty/death management.  

Prior to the Sacrifice Medal's implementation, I had heard of a medal coming out that was intended to replace the Wound Stripe.  You have to really see it to believe it, but there is an unbelievable amount of emotion surrounding Honours and Awards, let alone service medals.  Having experienced most of the H&A system in an operational context, I was never a proponent of creating an award that would be so divisive.  As I feared, the Sacrifice Medal has done so.  I agree that the name is not the best name for the medal as it has caused confusion/anger/etc. over what constitutes a "sacrifice".  Who can ultimately decide what was a sacrifice?  My family sacrificed for 9 and a half months without me, but this pales in comparison to other families that now have no father, brother, sister, wife, husband.  Some people left Afghanistan and other operational places with different injuries, both mental and physical.  Who can tell me what constitutes a sacrifice?  My point is that there will be many different opinions about what a "sacrifice" is and we will all never agree on them.

As it is unlikely that the medal will be removed from our H&A system, I believe that a name change is in order.

Minor pts about the Wound Stripe are that it was approved at the CO level and it was never given to a deceased mbr, whereas, (I'm not an expert on the Sacrifice Medal), it appears that the Sacrifice Medal's approval has been taken out of the CO's hands (as was for the Wound Stripe) and the SM can be awarded posthumously.

I must still wonder out loud, why did we need a new medal/recognition when we already had the Wound Stripe?  There is a tendency to "Americanize" our H&A system, e.g. needing something like the Purple Heart or the Combat Action Insignia.  The Wound Stripe did its job and did not create the divisiveness that I now see that the Sacrifice Medal has.

Edit: note that my reference to "Americanize" our H&A system was by no means a slight towards the Americans or their H&A system.  I just feel that we should look at our own Canadian situation and implement or change our H&A based on our needs, rather than looking to see what other nations have and implementing something very similar just because they have it.


----------



## derael

Oddly enough army news reports that friendly fire cases will be eligible...

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1_1.asp?id=2950


----------



## helpup

I heard what he said and have already stated my best wishes in getting it for Jeff, however in what I have read on the HA and knowing the particulars for his death. I really hope the quibbling at the higher levels sorts out the picking fly#@*T out of pepper doesn't continue.  Agreed the medal is poorly named,  The criteria I can understand and even agree with in the most part.  But why pray tell cant we as a nation take something as well meaning as this recognition is and make it clear cut, no shades of gray and encompass the gamut of not only likely scenarios but something we have intimant  knowledge of in over X many cases?


----------



## tank recce

derael said:
			
		

> Oddly enough army news reports that friendly fire cases will be eligible...



Waayy up at reply #15, Dataperson quoted the Canforgen discussing this award:


> DEATH OR WOUNDS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FRIENDLY FIRE AIMED AT A HOSTILE FORCE OR WHAT IS OR WAS THOUGHT TO BE A HOSTILE FORCE



I read this as Deliberate-yet-mistaken Blue-on-Blue - whether an overeager troop bounds in front of his own fireteam partner and gets hit, or - as in RHFC_Piper's case - friendlies get hit by other friendlies who thought the first group were hostiles. 

My (very limited) understanding of MCpl Walsh's tragedy was that it was a flat-out AD/ND, with no bad guys to be seen. Not the same thing at all...


----------



## helpup

That is my take on it too, my post still stands though.  The Army News really should of worded it better then the Blurb they put out.


----------



## Sito Origami

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Interesting statement that it was not intended to be a permanent issue.



I had intended my comments to refer to the pre-Unification era in reply to Old Sweat, who was discussing 1950's issue soldiers not wearing it even though they were wounded in Korea. I was never very good at not mixing my tenses. At any rate, the Wound Stripe, like all military insignia, has evolved over the decades. I did want to note that Old Sweat's point was a valid one - the Wound Stripe was abolished several times - so the fact that it is being abolished now is nothing new under the sun. My comments about the impermanent nature of the cloth badge were meant to highlight not my understanding of the CF dress regulations - quite faulty as it turns out - but the notion that the badge itself has now been replaced by something more tangible and permanent, not to mention appropriate for wear with civilian attire and formal wear such as mess dress, for those to whom such things are important. The debate about who will and who should choose to wear such a mark is of course open to further debate. Some will see it as a distinction, others will not. It is nice to have choice.


----------



## forgotten

Well they are going to have a meeting in reference to me at least..getting my wound stripe..at least that's a start. I should know by mid week weather i get it or not..In reference to the previous writers comment, yes it is kind of awkward to wear the wound stripe in.relaxed dress, civilian or on a mess kit.It would be nice to at least have a little discrete pin or acknowledgment to wear...I am still going to inquire into how if possible to get the sacrifice medal..I am trying to find out how and why the bureaucrats made this decision but I don't seem to be getting anywhere..I will NOT give up..until given an answer as to why it shouldn't be given to any LIVING post war veteran. The answer at present by "bureaucrats" is to why..is not good enough.


----------



## Sito Origami

forgotten said:
			
		

> Well they are going to have a meeting in reference to me at least..getting my wound stripe..at least that's a start. I should know by mid week weather i get it or not..In reference to the previous writers comment, yes it is kind of awkward to wear the wound stripe in.relaxed dress, civilian or on a mess kit.It would be nice to at least have a little discrete pin or acknowledgment to wear...I am still going to inquire into how if possible to get the sacrifice medal..I am trying to find out how and why the bureaucrats made this decision but I don't seem to be getting anywhere..I will NOT give up..until given an answer as to why it shouldn't be given to any LIVING post war veteran. The answer at present by "bureaucrats" is to why..is not good enough.



There used to be lapel pins for "service at the front" many years ago for wear in mufti. I can't remember if there was a wounded lapel pin or not - American Purple Heart recipients get a lapel pin with their medal if memory serves. I have seen enamelled lapel pins  in the shape of the CD ribbon. I see no reason an entrepreneur could not make a small, tasteful wound stripe pin and market them, if there was a - well, market for them, for use in civilian dress.


----------



## derael

Ah, didn't see that post... but yes I have to agree the wording on army news leaves a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy.


----------



## armyvern

derael said:
			
		

> Oddly enough army news reports that friendly fire cases will be eligible...
> 
> http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1_1.asp?id=2950



That's precisely because deaths or wounds suffered as a result of Friendly Fire *ARE ELIGIBLE*.



> ELIGIBLE CASES INCLUDE:
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS DUE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK, MINE OR BOMB DISPOSAL DUTY, DIRECT OR INDIRECT FIRE, RESCUE DUTY, COLLISION OF AN AIRCRAFT, VEHICLE OR VESSEL, ON THE CONDITION THAT THE OCCURRENCE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO A HOSTILE ACTION
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FRIENDLY FIRE *AIMED AT A HOSTILE FORCE*  OR WHAT IS OR WAS THOUGHT TO BE A HOSTILE FORCE
> 
> WOUNDS THAT REQUIRE NOT LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS OF TREATMENT IN HOSPITAL, OR AN EQUIVALENT COURSE OF TREATMENT, AND THAT WERE CAUSED BY
> 
> (1) EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN AIRCRAFT, VEHICLE OR VESSEL BEING DESTROYED OR DISABLED BY A HOSTILE ACTION,
> 
> (2) HARSH TREATMENT OR NEGLECT WHILE A CAPTIVE OF A HOSTILE FORCE, OR
> 
> (3) USE OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL AGENTS BY A HOSTILE FORCE
> 
> DEATH CAUSED BY
> 
> (1) EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN AIRCRAFT, VEHICLE OR VESSEL BEING DESTROYED OR DISABLED BY A HOSTILE ACTION
> 
> (2) HARSH TREATMENT OR NEGLECT WHILE A CAPTIVE OF A HOSTILE FORCE, OR
> 
> (3) USE OF NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL AGENTS BY A HOSTILE FORCE, OR
> 
> MENTAL DISORDERS THAT ARE DIAGNOSED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE QUOTE DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS UNQUOTE, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, AND BASED ON A REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED MENTAL HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER, ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO A HOSTILE OR PERCEIVED HOSTILE ACTION
> 
> INELIGIBLE CASES INCLUDE:
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS DUE TO EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS, OR CAUSED BY ACTS OF GOD
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS CAUSED BY AN ACCIDENT ARISING FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT IN A THEATRE OF OPERATIONS BUT WERE NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO A HOSTILE ACTION
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS CAUSED BY DISEASE,OR
> 
> DEATH OR WOUNDS THAT WERE SELF-INFLICTED OR CAUSED BY THE VICTIM S NEGLIGENCE



What is being questioned here is the ineligibility pertaining to the death of one of our soldiers in-theatre caused by a Negligent Discharge - which falls into the highlighted category under the "Ineligible Cases". 

Some of you really need to learn to read BEFORE you start posting and FURTHER causes stress and concern wrt to this issue. Fuck.

NOTE" "Hostile Intent" IS the line that has been drawn --- the EXACT same line that was drawn with the Wound Stripe (except, that for the Sacrifice Medal, posthumous awarding is also authorized -- unlike the Wound Stripe).

*_Milnet.ca staff edit for site policy_*


----------



## George Wallace

Is the Sacrifice Medal inappropriately named?  Should we change its' name?

We have seen quite a controversy brew up over this medal and the criteria set for it.  Most of the problems stem from the use of the word "Sacrifice".  Many have made sacrifices, but due to the nature of those sacrifices, they do not meet the criteria set out to be awarded this medal.  In essence, the word "Sacrifice" is misleading and totally inappropriate in the naming of this medal.  

Is there a requirement to rename this medal to more appropriately distinguish its true meaning?  Is there a more appropriate name for it?  What would that be, and how would we go about changing it?

Should it not been simple called the "Wound Medal" to cover the criteria of being wounded (superficially or mortally) in combat with a hostile force?  Are there more appropriate names to relate the significance of the medal to the criteria set for its award to a person?


----------



## armyvern

It all just reminds me of the other big thread on this issue which started out as 

"Wound Stripe being replaced?"

That debate raged, and people on this site saw problems and had concerns with it's "rumoured" replacement long before the medal came to be.

My question is:

Did we really need to replace the Wound Stripe which was already an honourable and historical tradition for the military which recognized the exact same personnel? Did we really need to re-invent the damn wheel only to cause further hurt, pain, division amongst the troops, the general consensus of "my service & wounds are being treated as lesser"?

The only difference between this HIGHLY contorversial medal and the Wound Stripe is that it can be awarded posthumously ... and THAT 'posthumous' criteria change _could have_ (and _should_ have IMHO) been applied to the already existing historical, traditional, and already worthy Wound Stripe.

And no, the name of the medal IS NOT appropriate in my humble opinion; THAT only furthers to sever the troops and the families of our fallen when one's sacrifice as a "volunteer" who dies or is injured while serving his country in ANY way, shape, or form while performing their duties to Queen and Country is deemed to be less "worthy" that that of another fallen soldier.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

They could ammend the name to state that it's a "Blood Sacrifice". Thus aleviating the distinction of it's reason for being awarded.

Cheers.


----------



## the 48th regulator

I have been a major player in the raging debate, however, I feel Vern and George have summed up exactly what I feel.

dileas

tess


----------



## Teflon

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It all just reminds me of the other big thread on this issue which started out as
> 
> "Wound Stripe being replaced?"
> 
> That debate raged, and people on this site saw problems and had concerns with it's "rumoured" replacement long before the medal came to be.
> 
> My question is:
> 
> Did we really need to replace the Wound Stripe which was already an honourable and historical tradition for the military which recognized the exact same personnel? Did we really need to re-invent the damn wheel only to cause further hurt, pain, division amongst the troops, the general consensus of "my service & wounds are being treated as lesser"?
> 
> The only difference between this HIGHLY contorversial medal and the Wound Stripe is that it can be awarded posthumously ... and THAT criteria change _could_ (and _should_ have IMHO) been applied to the already existing historical, traditional, and already worthy Wound Stripe.
> 
> And no, the name of the medal IS NOT appropriate in my humble opinion; THAT only furthers to sever the troops and the families of our fallen when one's sacrifice as a "volunteer" who dies while serving his country in ANY way, shape, or form while performing their duties to Queen and Country is deemed to be less "worthy" that that of another fallen soldier.



Since the Question you ask has already been the main topic of a very long often heated thread is it really required that it be brought up yet again?  The medal is here and we should  deal with it and I hope that this thread could remain about the medal and ideas to make it better / more suitable etc and not rehashing the medal v.s.wound stripe debate,

just my two cents anyways


----------



## armyvern

Teflon said:
			
		

> Since the Question you ask has already been the main topic of a very long often heated thread is it really required that it be brought up yet again?  The medal is here and we should  deal with it and I hope that this thread could remain about the medal and ideas to make it better / more suitable etc and not rehashing the medal v.s.wound stripe debate,
> 
> just my two cents anyways



Sure it has been ---

And NOT ONE single person stated what I just did:


"The only difference between this HIGHLY contorversial medal and the Wound Stripe is that it can be awarded posthumously ... *and THAT criteria change could (and should have IMHO) been applied to the already existing historical, traditional, and already worthy Wound Stripe*."

Now, as for your suggestion that it be ammended etc ...

What do you actually think the fallout of THAT would be? That soldiers who die as a result of NDs after 07 Oct 2001 become eligible for example? Imagine what that would do to the families of soldiers who died as the result of NDs PRIOR to that date (either within Canada, or in the case of one of my very best friends Corporal Michael David Abel who was killed by another soldier in a ND incident while serving in Somalia) They'd not be getting one, -- it would ONLY denigrate the service and sacrifice of those indivuals. 

And that is exactly why it is related to this thread here ... "Sacrifice" is NOT the appropriate word. It denigrates the service of all other soldiers who die by whatever means while serving their country and performing their duty.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I am not now and likely will never be a recipient of either of these, in my current MOC or the one I am remustering to, so I remind people of that at this point before I chuck in my thoughts.

My own thoughts are I think the medal is a step-down from the wound stripe.  The wound stripe was unique in its placement, and look.  We no longer wear the 'years of service bars'.  The only things I have ever seen on a DEU jacket in that location are the mini jump wings the Navy used to wear there, Marksmanship badges and wound stripes.

Reading comments from some of our members that have wound stripes, it seems that the history of the wound stripe is something they relate to more than another medal.  I remember seeing a WO at CFLRS who had a fair size amount of handware, I'd say 7-8 medals, and a wound stripe.  The wound stripe stuck out from the medals, to me atleast.  I saw it right away and thought "what is...." and then I knew what it was....sitting atop his rank insignia.  I am not sure another medal would have been so obvious.

I agree with both posts, in what AV says 





			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Did we really need to replace the Wound Stripe which was already an honourable and historical tradition for the military which recognized the exact same personnel? Did we really need to re-invent the damn wheel only to cause further hurt, pain, division amongst the troops, the general consensus of "my service & wounds are being treated as lesser"?
> 
> The only difference between this HIGHLY contorversial medal and the Wound Stripe is that it can be awarded posthumously ... and *THAT 'posthumous' criteria change could have (and should have IMHO) been applied to the already existing historical, traditional, and already worthy Wound Stripe.*
> And no, the name of the medal IS NOT appropriate in my humble opinion; THAT only furthers to sever the troops and the families of our fallen when one's sacrifice as a "volunteer" who dies or is injured while serving his country in ANY way, shape, or form while performing their duties to Queen and Country is deemed to be less "worthy" that that of another fallen soldier.



and what GW says





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Most of the problems stem from the use of the word "Sacrifice".  Many have made sacrifices, but due to the nature of those sacrifices, they do not meet the criteria set out to be awarded this medal.  In essence, the word "Sacrifice" is misleading and totally inappropriate in the naming of this medal.
> 
> Is there a requirement to rename this medal to more appropriately distinguish its true meaning?  Is there a more appropriate name for it?  What would that be, and how would we go about changing it?
> 
> *Should it not been simple called the "Wound Medal"* to cover the criteria of being wounded (superficially or mortally) in combat with a hostile force?



I think the first mistake was the move away from the wound stripe (I have my own opinion on why I think this was done, and not a good one) and the second mistake was to use the word "Sacrifice".

I think the I said "this whole thing was wrong" was watching 2 wound stripe recipients debating each other in the thread about MCpl Jeff Walsh and why he is not eligible for the Sacrifice Medal, when no one can argue if he sacrificed or not.  He certainly did.  Despite the wording of the criteria is clear, however the meaning of the WORD is also.

"If its not broke, don't fix it" does not apply with this subject, IMO.  Its broke.  _It needs to be fixed_, if our vets are debating it.  

Opinions like mine, well you can take them or leave them, the most danger I've seen in my career probably amounts to nervous recruits with their first live grenade or something.


Again, this coming from someone who is not wearing a wound stripe and is not eligible for the new medal, *but   to all those who where, who are, and who will be...*


----------



## George Wallace

This discusion is not about anything else other than the APPROPRIATE NAME for this Medal.  It is NOT about the changing of criteria for some other awards.  There are already discusions on those topics.

Stay on topic.


----------



## lawandorder

I don't think the name of the medal is intended to slight those who are never awarded it.  While many or should I say all CF members make multiple sacrifices during their career, it is not quite the same IMHP.  The medals name lets those not in the military know that they have sacrificed themselves through injury, and to those in as well.  In no way am I insulted by its name because the "ordinary" sacrifices I make in my duties are ones that pale in compairson.


----------



## armyvern

Law & Order said:
			
		

> I don't think the name of the medal is intended to slight those who are never awarded it.  While many or should I say all CF members make multiple sacrifices during their career, it is not quite the same IMHP.  The medals name lets those not in the military know that they have sacrificed themselves through injury, and to those in as well.  In no way am I insulted by its name because the "ordinary" sacrifices I make in my duties are ones that pale in compairson.



We're not talking about "ordinary" sacrifices though.

We're talking about the fact that there are soldiers who have died via "trauma" (either via ND, vehicle accident or other) while overseas performing duties on behalf of Queen and Country who are not eligible. Many feel (obviously by the threads) that their non-eligibility is a slight to them. 

I don't class those as "ordinary" --- then again --- I don't class the guy/gal who dies in a vehicle rollover on an ex in Canada as "ordinary sacrifice" either.


----------



## lawandorder

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We're not talking about "ordinary" sacrifices though.
> 
> We're talking about the fact that there are soldiers who have died via "trauma" (either via ND, vehicle accident or other) while overseas performing duties on behalf of Queen and Country who are not eligible. Many feel (obviously by the threads) that their non-eligibility is a slight to them.
> 
> I don't class those as "ordinary" --- then again --- I don't class the guy/gal who dies in a vehicle rollover on an ex in Canada as "ordinary sacrifice" either.



You're right.  Those aren't ordinary at all.  Maybe its just the "best" name they could think of?


----------



## George Wallace

Law & Order said:
			
		

> I don't think the name of the medal is intended to slight those who are never awarded it.  While many or should I say all CF members make multiple sacrifices during their career, it is not quite the same IMHP.  The medals name lets those not in the military know that they have sacrificed themselves through injury, and to those in as well.  In no way am I insulted by its name because the "ordinary" sacrifices I make in my duties are ones that pale in compairson.



The name currently doesn't slight anyone.  The criteria that is set to be awarded that medal does.  That is why the name is inappropriate.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We're not talking about "ordinary" sacrifices though.
> 
> We're talking about the fact that there are soldiers who have died via "trauma" (either via ND, vehicle accident or other) while overseas performing duties on behalf of Queen and Country who are not eligible. Many feel (obviously by the threads) that their non-eligibility is a slight to them.
> 
> I don't class those as "ordinary" --- then again --- I don't class the guy/gal who dies in a vehicle rollover on an ex in Canada as "ordinary sacrifice" either.



And this topic is not about what we are discussing in quite a bit of depth in other topics.  This topic has nothing to do with the sacrifices CF Members are making.  It has to do with the inappropriateness of calling this medal the "Sacrifice Medal" if it doesn't mean what it says.  It is NAMED wrong and should be changed.  WHAT SHOULD IT BE CALLED?


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And this topic is not about what we are discussing in quite a bit of depth in other topics.  This topic has nothing to do with the sacrifices CF Members are making.  It has to do with the inappropriateness of calling this medal the "Sacrifice Medal" if it doesn't mean what it says.  It is NAMED wrong and should be changed.  WHAT SHOULD IT BE CALLED?



That was a response to someone who thought the NAME didn't NEED to be changed because of "ordinary sacrifices". I pointed out to him that "Ordinary Sacrifices" had nothing to do with this medal and that the discussion was about calling it "Sacrifice" yet disallowing some of those who have paid the Ultimate Sacrifice from receiving it. They ALL died while serving DOING their duty and serving Queen and Country <-- that "Sacrifice" (by the criteria) is deemed to be "lesser" for those members. So whether we like it or not, the criteria and the name are all rolled up into one big ball of divisiveness.

As for your "what should it be called?"

I don't think it should even exist as per my first post - "the Wound Stripe" was honourable enough IMHO, and one small change to make that "posthumous" as well. That is the only change to the criteria from the Wound Stripe to this medal.

For the record: I am perfectly fine with the criteria as they now are. Hostile action and/or hostile intent as the line drawn. But we didn't need a new medal for that. We already had the Wound Stripe.

But, since it's suggested -- "The Wound Medal" is the best suggestion I've seen so far - even so, with that name you'll still see a denigration of service in that some would still feel a distinct "lesser service value" in that one only got a "Wound Stripe" while another got a "Wound Medal." The NAME of it just won't change the fact that it's simply a new version of the Wound Stripe, but one which is displayed on the chest vice the sleeve of the arm. So why?

It is my belief that this concept (now a reality) was not very well thought out, nor were the implications of such and the impact it would have upon those who've also served and died for this country prior to 07 Oct 2001. 

I suggest we call it the "Divisive Medal" --- because that is exactly what it has served up.

Every time someone tries to screw around with history and tradition ... the same thing happens. It's pretty sad actually.


----------



## George Wallace

Well, someone in their infinite wisdom has created this medal, and done away with the Wound Stripe (once again), so we must now live with it.  

I have nothing against the criteria set for the awarding of this medal.

I do have a problem with the name, as we have seen so many others debate.

Sorry, but "Divisive Medal" will loose its meaning in time, as soon as this current debate becomes history.  It the debate continues into history, then we can assume the name was never changed.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But, since it's suggested -- "The Wound Medal" is the best suggestion I've seen so far - even so, with that name you'll still see a denigration of service in that some would still feel a distinct "lesser service value" in that one only got a "Wound Stripe" while another got a "Wound Medal." The NAME of it just won't change the fact that it's simply a new version of the Wound Stripe, but one which is displayed on the chest vice the sleeve of the arm. So why?



Historically, this is beginning to look like the implementation of the Victoria Cross and the confusion that arose with the knitting of Queen Victoria's Scarves.  Awards have been presented throughout history.  Some have been "updated".  Does that mean that one who held an older award should get their updated to the new award?  Does that now leave us with the dilemma that someone has been awarded two awards for the same deeds?  No.  Does it denigrate the Award that the person got previously?  Again, No.

This medal doesn't denigrate the previous Award.  It starts a new line in history.  Unfortunately, it is named poorly and causes grief where none should be.  The name should be changed.

Someone screwed up big time.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Sito Origami said:
			
		

> The new medal will remedy that by being a permanent fixture on the uniform.



Medals are not permanently fixed on a uniform, they are permanently fixed to the rest of your medals when court mounted but fitted to the uniform by either clutch style pins or a broach style pin


----------



## Sito Origami

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> Medals are not permanently fixed on a uniform, they are permanently fixed to the rest of your medals when court mounted but fitted to the uniform by either clutch style pins or a broach style pin



The medals do not get fixed to each other; they do get attached to the _ribbons_, which are themselves permanently attached to some item - perspex or some type of material, to which the pin fasteners or broach is itself attached. If anybody ever took the metal "gongs" and actually attached them to each other, I think the owner would be very upset.


----------



## George Wallace

If we look at the American "Purple Heart" we see that the Name of the Medal alone, does not signify anything.  The criteria for which the Purple Heart is awarded does signify why it is presented.

We on the other hand have come up with a 'glorious' name, "Sacrifice" that in itself describes a wide spectrum of deeds made by members of the CF, but our criteria for the awarding of this medal do not cover that whole gambit, but a much narrower, more specific spectrum of deeds. 

Why don't we call it something else.  "Wound Medal" more accurately describes it, but still has connotations of the Wound Stripe.  

Could we name it after a famous Canadian who was wounded in combat?  Perhaps we should call it the VAC Medal as they will be dealing with the living wounded or perhaps the Veterans Medal, of Veterans of Foreign Wars Medal?  I suppose than those Veterans who weren't injured would feel left out.  How about, the LOB (Left out of Battle) Medal?  Maybe a MEM (Medical Evac Medal)?  Combat Casualty Medal?   The CCM may more accurately describe the medal along the lines of the criteria listed in the awarding of this medal.

Surely, someone can find a better name for this medal, that does not create so much controversy due to people not reading and understanding the criteria for which it is to be awarded.  A name that will be fitting and not insulting to any.


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well, someone in their infinite wisdom has created this medal, and done away with the Wound Stripe (once again), so we must now live with it.
> 
> I have nothing against the criteria set for the awarding of this medal.
> 
> I do have a problem with the name, as we have seen so many others debate.
> 
> Sorry, but "Divisive Medal" will loose its meaning in time, as soon as this current debate becomes history.  It the debate continues into history, then we can assume the name was never changed.
> 
> Historically, this is beginning to look like the implementation of the Victoria Cross and the confusion that arose with the knitting of Queen Victoria's Scarves.  Awards have been presented throughout history.  Some have been "updated".  Does that mean that one who held an older award should get their updated to the new award?  Does that now leave us with the dilemma that someone has been awarded two awards for the same deeds?  No.  Does it denigrate the Award that the person got previously?  Again, No.
> 
> This medal doesn't denigrate the previous Award.  It starts a new line in history.  Unfortunately, it is named poorly and causes grief where none should be.  The name should be changed.
> 
> Someone screwed up big time.



Agree with all your points --- and, please note: my voice was actually dripping with sarcasm when I offered up "The Divisive Medal" ...

As well, I don't think this medal "denigrates" the Wound Stripe either ... but judging by some media and family comments they certainly think this new Medal denigrates and lessens the service of their fallen loved ones who have died as a result of performing their duties and who do not qualify. It does seem to denigrate the sacrifice their loved one has paid for Queen and Country. That's where the controversy actually lays.

Renaming this medal to any other name won't change the fact that it is an "uparmoured" Wound Stripe (and by using the term "uparmoured - I do not mean to infer "better" or "nobler" because I certainly do not think that it is) - to be worn on the chest instead of the arm. You can change the name, but that doesn't "fix" the criteria. Nor will those who are feeling like they've gotten the shaft with this medal ... feel any less shafted with it's being re-named.

I also am left with the distinct feeling in the pit of my stomach that someone wanted to "up" the recognition for today's soldiers from the Wound Stripe to a Medal, but ... of course a new medal couldn't be issued for such a thing (that would be double recognition) because the Wound Stripe already had the criteria covered and was the official recognition --- ergo the addition of "posthumous" criteria which, in effect, made it an award for "something different". And look at the grief that has caused ... all because someone wanted a new medal (it couldn't have been "recognition" they wanted --- we already had the Wound Stripe for that).


----------



## armyvern

Sito Origami said:
			
		

> The medals do not get fixed to each other; they do get attached to the _ribbons_, which are themselves permanently attached to some item - perspex or some type of material, to which the pin fasteners or broach is itself attached. If anybody ever took the metal "gongs" and actually attached them to each other, I think the owner would be very upset.



And, I'm thinking that the ribbon is "part" of the medal no?

Even if you don't think so --- I'm quite sure you know wtf he meant and the context that he meant it in.


----------



## the 48th regulator

The challenge I see with the medal, was the fact that the Wound Stripe was only considered a dress distinction, not a recognition.

Further, it separates members serving, and veterans that are still living to those that were wounded in the Sandbox, as if this is a special war that we are fighting.  To me, no consistency.

Either give it to all that were wounded, or keep what we already have in place, the Wound Stripe.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The challenge I see with the medal, was the fact that the Wound Stripe was only considered a dress distinction, not a recognition.
> 
> Further, it separates members serving, and veterans that are still living to those that were wounded in the Sandbox, as if this is a special war that we are fighting.  To me, no consistency.
> 
> Either give it to all that were wounded, or keep what we already have in place, the Wound Stripe.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Nothing wrong with your Wound Stripe Tess ... and it's no lesser than this Medal despite what some would think.

And for those who think it is because they are "at war", the new Medal is not just applicable to the sandbox ... even though some seem to think it is. They are quite erroneous in that respect.

"Hostile Intent" is not limited to Afghanistan.  Major Paeta Hess Von Kreudner. "Hostile intent". In a blue beret. Those that are thinking "need to be at war to get it" or "in the face of the enemy" need to read the criteria again ... because that is NOT one of the criteria.


----------



## George Wallace

Let's not get derailed by going into the Medal, the Suspender, the Mounting, the Pin, the Claw, the Clip, the Ribbon Roller, Bars, Clasps, etc. or we will have to start a whole topic on terminology of Medals.    ;D


----------



## Sito Origami

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, I'm thinking that the ribbon is "part" of the medal no?
> 
> Even if you don't think so --- I'm quite sure you know wtf he meant and the context that he meant it in.



ArmyVern, I hadn't expected anyone to take my use of "permanently" literally. I can't imagine anyone expecting another human being not to know that medals detach from the uniform so I assumed it had to be a joke. If you reread his post, I am sure you will come to the same conclusion. Since I simply assumed he was attempting some humour with his response, I attempted some similar dry humour in return. I hope he took it in the spirit it was intended. Best advice on internet communication is to assume the best of people and things will go smoothly. Have a great day.


----------



## armyvern

Sito Origami said:
			
		

> ArmyVern, I hadn't expected anyone to take my use of "permanently" literally. I can't imagine anyone expecting another human being not to know that medals detach from the uniform so I assumed it had to be a joke. If you reread his post, I am sure you will come to the same conclusion. Since I simply assumed he was attempting some humour with his response, I attempted some similar dry humour in return. I hope he took it in the spirit it was intended. Best advice on internet communication is to assume the best of people and things will go smoothly. Have a great day.



Actually I wouldn't (& didn't) come to the same conclusion. But then, I'm a dinosaur. I was around in the day when indeed our ribbon bars etc were "permanently" affixed (a mere 10-12 years ago too) to our tunics and shirts instead of the push-pin type we now wear.


----------



## aesop081

forgotten said:
			
		

> Because..OHHHH My heaven forbid that we actually had peacekeepers wounded on peacekeeping duties and it would tarnish our image on the international or national version of what has actually happened over the years.. in peacekeeping?? Cover up me thinks??



What cover up ?

Those folks i know who were wounded on peacekeeping operations were awarded their wound stripes on parade. So please tell me, what was covered up ?


----------



## Sito Origami

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Actually I wouldn't (& didn't) come to the same conclusion. But then, I'm a dinosaur.



But not dinosaur enough to realize that the metal part is indeed called a medal?  ;D Thank you to George for the clarification. And apologies to all for the sideways trip.

Whatever the new medal is called or how it is worn, I hope it is not issued too often - unless it is retroactively to those that have merited them. 

I wonder if the challenge in making it retroactive would be in accurate record keeping; for example, would older medical documents accurately categorize or record neuropsychiatric ailments and other types of stress ailment, particularly to the standard called for in the terms and conditions of the award of the Sacrifice Medal?


----------



## pizzathahut

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> You are one confused puppy.  You want to give the medal to anyone in a War Zone who is under direct fire, friendly or not, should get the medal, and then you turn around and say that someone in a FOB who is wounded by a mortar (Fired by the enemy, I assume) is different and not deserving of the medal, only a mention in dispatches.
> 
> You obviously don't have a full grasp on what the criteria are, nor what is going on in Afghanistan.  Not with that statement anyway.


lol, think you hit the nail on the head. I do not posses much of a grasp on the criteria. I've been in Cadets growing up but that's it. I want to enlist but have too many personal matters to deal with right now. Maybe in a year or two I can look back into it. Until then, I want to do my part in supporting the troops in the only way I can right now (the website cftoday.info). If you have any links to some learning sources & resources. I'm game.


----------



## aesop081

pizzathahut said:
			
		

> . I do not posses much of a grasp on the criteria.



Do some reading then, it will help you alot on this subject. The specific criteria for this award has been posted here repeatedly.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Enough. It would appear that serious discussion has run its course.  Locked with the usual caveat.  If you have something useful and factual to add, please contact a Moderator who may unlock the thread.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## forgotten

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> What cover up ?
> 
> Those folks i know who were wounded on peacekeeping operations were awarded their wound stripes on parade. So please tell me, what was covered up ?



It was not meant to come out that way..just wrong choice of words...my apologies..for offending people


----------



## forgotten

forgotten said:
			
		

> It was not meant to come out that way..just wrong choice of words...my apologies..for offending people


as well it was an attempt at humour that backfired..was more tongue in cheek..rather I inserted foot in mouth...

OK Update according to The Centre it looks very promising that I will get it, according to my records to get my wound stripe..finally after 31 years..so crossing my fingers also i was sent a newspaper clipping Calgary Sun September 14 in regards to a gentleman from Calgary who  helped design the new medal. he is a Korean vet who was wounded in Korea twice and rather upset that  The new Sacrifice medal is only backdated to 2001...I am amazed how bureaucrats decide who gets what..IMHO I feel all veterans deserve it..who were wounded..


----------



## Blackadder1916

forgotten said:
			
		

> . . .  also i was sent a newspaper clipping Calgary Sun September 14 in regards to a gentleman from Calgary who  helped design the new medal. he is a Korean vet who was wounded in Korea twice and rather upset that  The new Sacrifice medal is only backdated to 2001...



This may be the article to which you refer.

*Medal irks soldiers of past conflicts*


> By BILL KAUFMANN, SUN MEDIA Thu, September 11, 2008 UPDATED: 2008-09-11 02:20:16 MST
> 
> Canada's new medal honouring wounded post-9/11 veterans is a betrayal of soldiers from other campaigns, says a Korean War survivor.
> 
> Ex-Calgarian Richard Engel, who said he submitted designs for the Sacrifice Medal unveiled last month, insists he's not alone among older veterans in taking offence to being ineligible for the decoration.
> 
> "I don't begrudge people surviving Afghanistan but it's a slap in the face," said Engel, 78, who was wounded twice in Korea and once while training soldiers for that war in Calgary.
> 
> Engel said he worked on a design for the decoration with another veteran, submitting the drafts through Jim Abbot, Tory MP for Fairmount Hotsprings, B.C., where he now lives.
> 
> When he'd heard last month of the new decoration, though in a different design, he was initially pleased, until he learned only those eligible for service following Oct. 7, 2001.
> 
> "I was impressed with this sacrifice medal -- I thought 'finally, they've done something,'" he said.
> 
> "But it's as if we don't matter."
> 
> Veterans injured in action from past campaigns were awarded wound stripes worn on tunic sleeves, but Engel said they were never accepted by most warriors and seldom worn.
> 
> "They're awkward," he said.
> 
> The medal's design and designation was determined by the honours policy committee comprised of government bureaucrats, whose decision was ultimately approved by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Queen Elizabeth II, said Marie-Paul Thorn of the governor general's secretarial office.
> 
> The decoration is meant to honour soldiers of the more recent campaigns, said Thorn.
> 
> "It signalled the beginning of Canada's contribution to the campaign against terrorism in southwest Asia," she said, adding some veterans are "bound to feel betrayed."


----------



## 3rd Horseman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with your Wound Stripe Tess ... and it's no lesser than this Medal despite what some would think.
> 
> And for those who think it is because they are "at war", the new Medal is not just applicable to the sandbox ... even though some seem to think it is. They are quite erroneous in that respect.
> 
> *"Hostile Intent"* is not limited to Afghanistan.  Major Paeta Hess Von Kreudner. "Hostile intent". In a blue beret. Those that are thinking "need to be at war to get it" or "in the face of the enemy" need to read the criteria again ... because that is NOT one of the criteria.


Great points Vern! and Tess had some thoughtfull comments.
"Hostile Intent"  is the key to the disfunction of the medal......The first issue of the Wound Stripe had a "Hostile Intent" clause...thus the early wound strips were harder to get. For the guy trying for the wound strip from 31 years ago you would fall under the old version of the stripe unless the next genration of the strip over road the original one. I dont know.

3rd Horseman


----------



## forgotten

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> This may be the article to which you refer.
> 
> *Medal irks soldiers of past conflicts*



yes and thank you!!


----------



## forgotten

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Great points Vern! and Tess had some thoughtfull comments.
> "Hostile Intent"  is the key to the disfunction of the medal......The first issue of the Wound Stripe had a "Hostile Intent" clause...thus the early wound strips were harder to get. For the guy trying for the wound strip from 31 years ago you would fall under the old version of the stripe unless the next genration of the strip over road the original one. I don't know.
> 
> 3rd Horseman



LOL..not to make light of receiving the wound stripe..ya it seems to change all the time..and according to someone else..they did not have the woundstripe..back in the 70's and i wasn't even aware at the time that such a thing existed..In my warped and weird way of thinking..it was just part of the job getting wounded..but I did suck back copious amounts of beer at the time from my other people i was with..


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Forgtten

  Wait for it we all forgot what we were to get....as we have not even touched the surface of the POW medal! In Yugo we had POWs so not only is the WIA stripe confusing so is the Prisoner of War medal. Maybe its the special pension that goes with the POW medal is why they still drag on that issue.

3rd Horseman


----------



## Greymatters

I thought the difficulty was recognizing that action as a 'war'?


----------



## armyvern

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I thought the difficulty was recognizing that action as a 'war'?



Interestingly, this shouldn't be an issue.

International Law, (formed from the Hague Law, The Geneva Conventions etc) defines "war" as "Armed Conflict", ergo the name applicable is:

*The Law of Armed Conflict* (note that it does not say "war").

"Conflict" is then broken down into 5 main categories:

1. States of Emergency 
2. Other Internal Conflicts 
3. Civil Wars 
4. Internationalized Armed Conflicts 
5. International Armed Conflict

(Seems to me that the Balkans fits within that spectrum).

GENEVA CONVENTION (III) RELATIVE TO THE
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR – 1949


> Article 4
> A. *Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are
> persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have
> fallen into the power of the enemy:*
> (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well
> as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such
> armed forces.
> 
> (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer
> corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging
> to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own
> territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias
> or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements,
> fulfil the following conditions:
> 
> (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for
> his subordinates;
> (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
> distance;
> (c) that of carrying arms openly;
> (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with
> the laws and customs of war.
> 
> *(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
> government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining
> Power.*
> 
> (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being
> members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft
> crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour
> units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces,
> provided that they have received authorization, from the armed
> forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that
> purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
> 
> (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of
> the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to
> the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under
> any other provisions of international law.
> 
> (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of
> the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading
> forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular
> armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws
> and customs of war.
> 
> *B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under
> the present Convention:*
> (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of
> the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary
> by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has
> originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside
> the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have
> made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which
> they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to
> comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
> (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in
> the present Article, who have been received by neutral or nonbelligerent
> Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are
> required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any
> more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give
> and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph,
> 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the
> *Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power
> concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power*. Where
> such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom
> these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the
> functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention,
> without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally
> exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage
> and treaties.
> C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel
> and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.



Seems pretty clear to me that they were considered POWs under the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1949 ... and were recognized as and called such such by the belligerants who held them. Apparently not so to their own government though.

3rd has a good point. How many average Canadians were/are even aware that we experienced members of the Canadian Forces being held as POWs in the Balkans in the 1990s?? Not many I wager. Typical.


----------



## geo

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Interestingly, this shouldn't be an issue.
> How many average Canadians were/are even aware that we experienced members of the Canadian Forces being held as POWs in the Balkans in the 1990s?? Not many I wager. Typical.



When you get down to it, our troops were held captive every time the Serbs / Croats / Bosnian Serbs stopped one of our vehicles & stuck mines Fore & Aft - preventing our troops from going anywhere.


----------



## armyvern

geo said:
			
		

> When you get down to it, our troops were held captive every time the Serbs / Croats / Bosnian Serbs stopped one of our vehicles & stuck mines Fore & Aft - preventing our troops from going anywhere.



I agree ... but there were those who were "held hostage" (and by the LoAC definition - POW) in the Police Station, and handcuffed to the pole to prevent airstrikes ... and having the Red Cross coming in to deliver mail, pick up mail, food etc etc.

These guys had their names placed on the Red Cross list ... and were treated/inspected/monitored by them. Their families were also notified by Unit CoC of their loved one's status ... I happened to be sitting with my children's babysitter when they came to notify her of her husband's "captivity". Things ... were very tense for quite a long time until he was released as you can surely imagine.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Hero worthy of medal
But strict rules keep soldier who died in Afghanistan from honour

By JOE WARMINGTON

Last Updated: 16th September 2008, 7:57am
Email Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Share with: 
Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Furl Newsvine Reddit Technorati Blinklist Feed Me Yahoo Ma.gnolia Simpy Squidoo Spurl Blogmarks Netvouz Scuttle rel="blank"Co.mments Tailrank Sitejot + What are these? 

Ben Walsh, a retired Mountie dressed in the RCMP's scarlet tunic, and his wife, Margaret, follow the casket of their son Master Cpl. Jeffrey Walsh at his funeral last month in Regina. Walsh died while on patrol in an accidental shooting by a fellow soldier. On patrol in deadly Afghani stan, Master Cpl. Jeffrey Scott Walsh made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. 

Now will his country honour him with highest medal given for sacrifice? 

Not so far. So count me in with those going to bat to see to it that this specific case be given a second look and that this fine Regina native be given the new Sacrifice Medal, which was announced last month by the governor general. 

"The Sacrifice Medal was created to recognize a member of the Canadian Forces, a member of an allied force, or a Canadian civilian under the authority of the Canadian Forces who, as of Oct. 7, 2001, died or was wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of hostile action," is the explanation on the GG's website. 

So far Walsh, who earned three other Afghanistan medals, has been determined undeserving -- despite the unusual circumstances of his death. 

If ever a case should be looked at for reconsideration, it's this one, because doing so could very well provide clarity as to what Canada defines as sacrifice. 

In this instance it has been deemed that because he died while on patrol in a vehicle on Aug. 9, 2006, near Kandahar as a result of gunfire from a fellow Canadian soldier's weapon, he was not killed in combat and is ineligible for Canada's new Sacrifice Medal. 

FAMILY UPSET 

It does not sit well with Walsh's family -- specifically his 61-year-old father, Ben, a retired Mountie. "My son, and 96 other soldiers, gave their lives for Canada and in my opinion they are all deserving of the Sacrifice Medal," he said yesterday from his Regina home. 

However, in a letter from Andre M. Levesque, director of honours and recognition at the department of national defence, it clearly states that "eligibility for the Sacrifice Medal, as that of the Wound Stripe which it replaces, is limited to those wounds and deaths which are the result of hostile action. As such, all accidents, diseases, natural deaths and other similar instances, even if they occur within a theatre of operations, are not eligible. 

"Based on the information we have on file regarding your son, it appears that his tragic death was caused by the accidental discharge of a weapon by one of his colleagues and was not related to enemy action. This new medal, like its predecessor the Wound Stripe and many other similar foreign decorations such as the American Purple Heart, is solely intended to recognize those who die or are wounded in combat." 

The big question is did what happened to Walsh, who turned 33 the day before, occur in combat? Or was he subsequently killed in a friendly fire incident? 

Either way, according to Marie Paule Thorn at the governor general's residence Rideau Hall, he would be eligible. 

STRICT RULES 

However, the rules say friendly fire must occur in an incident in which the enemy is firing upon the Canadian soldiers. 

It has been determined Walsh was not in clear-cut combat and was killed during an unfortunate accident that occurred while carrying out a patrol. 

No matter which way you look at it, he was struck under the armpit from an accidental firing of a rifle and died in theatre. 

Fellow soldier Robbie Fraser is facing charges of manslaughter. 

The thing is the whole environment there is combat. It's never a quiet drive on a country road and soldiers are always in harm's way. 

It's always hostile. 

"With these rules it would mean there are 13 soldiers who would not be eligible," Ben Walsh said. 

Specifically, with his son's case, there is enough grey area to bestow him this medal. 

Please consider if Walsh had been killed by a roadside bomb on that same patrol, he certainly would have been eligible. 

So being killed while looking for a roadside bomb, or a Taliban fighter trying to set one during that patrol, should not be any different. 

The fact he was shot accidently just magnifies the kind of stress and tension these soldiers were under. It's all part of the same mission. There is not any one kind of sacrifice that should trump another -- and no sacrifice is any more or less worthy. 

In this situation there has to be careful consideration since clearly the rifle's safety mechanism was not on and reports indicated there was a finger on the trigger. 

These were not Canadian roads. It has to be looked at on the merits of doing patrols in a place where almost 100 Canadians have died. 

For example, Jeff Walsh was not killed by an accidental discharge by someone cleaning his gun in a tent on base. That could be looked at differently. 

These are not the facts here and this is one of those times where the letter of the law does not always work. There must be exceptions to every rule. 

Some 1,200 agree and have signed an online petition, posted by Kitchener's Dan Gray, who feels to overlook Walsh here cheapens his sacrifice. He wants him to be awarded the Sacrifice Medal posthumously and if you agree, you can express that on petitiononline.com/EHDASM/petition.html. 

Ben Walsh said, "When you lose your son like that, you lose part of yourself. It's not the medal I am fighting for. It's the point of the thing." 

He believes if you die serving your country in a war theatre, in any fashion, you should get that Sacrifice Medal. "And I am hoping her excellency, the governor general, will change this error," he said. "I believe the prime minister can change it too with one phone call." 

They certainly should take a second look at his son's unique circumstances since no matter how you slice it, in war-torn Afghanistan, a Canadian father of three did make the ultimate sacrifice. 

_Copyright © 2008 Toronto Sun All Rights Reserved_


A little media coverage.

I have unlocked this, please let us keep this civil.

dileas

tess


----------



## coffee4ourtroops

This was also on Global News in Regina, SASK last night.  You can see the interview with his father here:

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/regina/index.html


----------



## armyvern

So, now we're going to widen the debate to include the definition of combat?

That just opened a whole 'nother big cans of very ugly worms with that other new "initiative" coming slowly down the pipe ...

The Combat Action Badge; not that anyone here never saw the controversy with that one coming either ... (which combat is actual "gold", "silver" or "bronze" level combat ... and ... aren't they all - by virtue of being there actually "in" combat?? That seems to be the way the arguements now leaning with the Sacrifice Medal.)

Eerily, although I really do "feel" for this family ... I don't see the word "combat" in the criteria either. I see "Hostile Intent".


----------



## brihard

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, now we're going to widen the debate to include the definition of combat?
> 
> That just opened a whole 'nother big cans of very ugly worms with that other new "initiative" coming slowly down the pipe ...
> 
> The Combat Action Badge; not that anyone here never saw the controversy with that one coming either ... (which combat is actual "gold", "silver" or "bronze" level combat ... and ... aren't they all - by virtue of being there actually "in" combat?? That seems to be the way the arguements now leaning with the Sacrifice Medal.)
> 
> Eerily, although I really do "feel" for this family ... I don't see the word "combat" in the criteria either. I see "Hostile Intent".



Oh god... I'd ask you to tell me you're joking about this badge, Vern, but I somehow doubt that you are. It sounds just like the kind of brilliant idea that would come out of Disney-On-The-Rideau... Got any links about this, or is it still RUMINT?


----------



## Fusaki

> Ben Walsh, a retired Mountie dressed in the RCMP's scarlet tunic, and his wife, Margaret, follow the casket of their son Master Cpl. Jeffrey Walsh at his funeral last month in Regina. Walsh died while *on patrol* in an accidental shooting by a fellow soldier. On patrol in deadly Afghani stan, Master Cpl. Jeffrey Scott Walsh made the ultimate sacrifice for his country.



Was MCPL Walsh not killed inside KAF? I was of the understanding that a C6 was not properly cleared off the range, causing it to discharge as it was loaded in the back of a G-Wagon.

Not that I think it matters. An ND is NOT friendly fire and therefore NOT hostile action. I can see how it would look that way to civillians like Joe Warmington, but from a military perspective we all know that friendly fire and NDs are not even close to the same thing.


----------



## armyvern

Brihard said:
			
		

> Oh god... I'd ask you to tell me you're joking about this badge, Vern, but I somehow doubt that you are. It sounds just like the kind of brilliant idea that would come out of Disney-On-The-Rideau... Got any links about this, or is it still RUMINT?



(Former) Mod Post!!

DO A SEARCH!!

Dammit.



(Gawd ... that felt good!)  ;D


----------



## brihard

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> (Former) Mod Post!!
> 
> DO A SEARCH!!
> 
> Dammit.
> 
> 
> 
> (Gawd ... that felt good!)  ;D



LOL, I'd heard of this before on this site- I just thought you might have been referring to something new, that's all. I was just hoping that after the time it's been since I last heard of this abortion of an idea that perhaps no news was good news...


----------



## armyvern

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Was MCPL Walsh not killed inside KAF? I was of the understanding that a C6 was not properly cleared off the range, causing it to discharge as it was loaded in the back of a G-Wagon.
> 
> Not that I think it matters. An ND is NOT friendly fire and therefore NOT hostile action. I can see how it would look that way to civillians like Joe Warmington, but from a military perspective we all know that friendly fire and NDs are not even close to the same thing.



No. He was killed outside while doing a patrol.

See this thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/58709.0.html

I Believe that you are thinking of Cpl Kevin Megeney's which was also caused by an ND, but which occured within the confines of KAF in his tent.


----------



## geo

Ayup - I hear ya & know where you're coming from.

Am just happy that we didn't lose anyone under such conditions.


----------



## Greymatters

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What is next?  Are we going to have Canadian Forces CSI landing on the ground to ensure all medals and decoration are worthy of their meaning?
> are involved in the decision process, be allowed to re-enact the day to see what they feel is a true sacrifice.



Not sure if it is true throughout the US military, but it was explained to me that they do have an investigative process for this prior to awarding any medal where injury, or award of merit or honor is involved.


----------



## dapaterson

Brihard said:
			
		

> Oh god... I'd ask you to tell me you're joking about this badge, Vern, but I somehow doubt that you are. It sounds just like the kind of brilliant idea that would come out of Disney-On-The-Rideau... Got any links about this, or is it still RUMINT?



"Disney on the Rideau" fought the sacrifice medal for reasons such as this, and fought the CAB for the same reasons.  But what the Big Cod wanted, the Big Cod got... (like the useless new command HQs.)


----------



## armyvern

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (like the useless new command HQs.)



You mean the ones who are eating up all the personnel that we could really use out here on the bases?


----------



## dapaterson

Actually, mostly they ate up the people who had been in Ottawa warming chairs for a decade or more who didn't want to move anyways.  A couple of years ago I met someone who had spent the last 28 years of his Reg F career in Ottawa, with 10+ postings in that time...


----------



## Blackadder1916

The discontent widens.

*Military medal rules 'callous,' family says *  


> By CHRIS LAMBIE  The Chronicle Herald Staff Reporter Thu. Sep 18 - 5:19 AM
> 
> *Parents of at least three Nova Scotia soldiers who died in Afghanistan want to know why their sons don’t appear to qualify for the military’s new Sacrifice Medal*.
> 
> The medal, announced last month, will be awarded to soldiers who died or suffered wounds in combat. But the military’s official criteria rule out death or wounds in a war zone not directly attributable to hostile action, such as driving mishaps or accidental shootings.
> 
> "It’s a little narrow-sighted, kind of shallow thinking and perhaps callous," said Bev Woodfield, the mother of *Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield*, the 24-year-old soldier from Cow Bay who died in November 2005 when his light armoured vehicle rolled over near Kandahar.
> 
> "I think this is somewhat of an oversight. They all go over there for the same reason. They’re all making sacrifices."
> 
> The Defence Department should show some compassion and award the medal to all soldiers killed or injured in Afghanistan, she said.
> 
> "This is wrong to put division between the soldiers," Ms. Woodfield said Wednesday.
> 
> "Perhaps all the politicians that are running for a federal seat could chip in $10 and make sure that all the soldiers who have been injured or killed over in Afghanistan damn well get a medal. It’s sinful."
> 
> Pte. Woodfield’s father also feels his son should receive the medal posthumously.
> 
> "Were there bullets being fired at the time? No," said Dan Woodfield, a retired naval officer. "But because they were travelling in an area where those activities were and are going on, then that (medal) should be given as a result."
> 
> Several other Nova Scotia soldiers killed in Afghanistan don’t appear to qualify for the medal.
> 
> *Cpl. Kevin Megeney*, 25, of Stellarton died when he was allegedly shot accidentally in his tent by another soldier from Nova Scotia.
> 
> "They’re over there serving," said his father, Dexter Megeney. "If they die over there, they should receive a medal, definitely."
> 
> The military hasn’t awarded Cpl. Megeney a medal for his service in Afghanistan, said his dad.
> 
> "They brought a coin to us, but that was it."
> 
> *Cpl. Paul Davis*, a 28-year-old Bridgewater native, died March 2, 2006, in Afghanistan when his light armoured vehicle hit a taxi, veered off the road and flipped.
> 
> "Paul was officially classified as a traffic accident," said his father, Jim Davis. "I don’t believe he will qualify for one" of the medals.
> 
> But he should, Mr. Davis said.
> 
> "I have two grandchildren and it’s always nice for them to cherish memories of their dad," he said. "If a medal can help them in their grieving, then give them a medal. Some people might argue it diminishes the importance of a medal. Not in my mind. I don’t think it does. These soldiers are sent overseas and they’re put in harm’s way. I can’t see the logic behind saying they’re not going to give the medal because you were killed in an accident."
> 
> Ben Walsh, a Regina man whose son, Master Cpl. Jeffrey Walsh, died in Afghanistan in 2006 when he was accidentally shot by a fellow soldier, said it is possible 13 Canadians killed in Afghanistan will not receive the honour.
> 
> "One phone call from the Prime Minister’s Office and this can be changed," Mr. Walsh said. "It’s a hot potato (in Ottawa) right now. It’s jumping from office to office and nobody seems to want to deal with it. They just want it to go away, but I won’t let it go away.
> 
> "I’m like Danny Williams in Newfoundland. I won’t leave them alone. He’s at (Stephen) Harper’s right foot and I’m going to be at his left."
> 
> It’s not clear who’s responsible for the decision to restrict the medals to combat casualties.
> 
> Nominations for the medal are made through the military’s chain of command, said Marie-Paule Thorn, a spokeswoman from the office of Governor General Michaelle Jean.
> 
> Ms. Thorn referred questions about the medals to public affairs at the Defence Department.
> 
> "My understanding is that the GG’s office determines the criteria for the medal and National Defence administers," said department spokeswoman Sarah Kavanagh.
> 
> ( clambie@herald.ca)


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Disney on the Rideau" fought the sacrifice medal for reasons such as this, and fought the CAB for the same reasons.  But what the Big Cod wanted, the Big Cod got... (like the useless new command HQs.)



No personal stabs intended there, dapaterson, I've got two log officers in my immediate family and respect what you guys do. I mistakenly assumed these ideas for new, shiny, unnecessary decorations came out of some committee sequestered downtown, and not from The Big Man himself. Apologies if you took that personally; plenty of people at NDHQ do valuable jobs- but there's also enough nonsense out of there to justify some occasional jest. That's all I intended by my 'disney' remark.


----------



## dapaterson

No offense taken - besides, there are fun things to spend your time at in Disneyland; not so much at 101 Col By... so the analogy fails...


----------



## forgotten

geo said:
			
		

> When you get down to it, our troops were held captive every time the Serbs / Croats / Bosnian Serbs stopped one of our vehicles & stuck mines Fore & Aft - preventing our troops from going anywhere.



I have a friend who was in the Medoc Pocket battle and he received I guess whats called the Gov general citation or something to that effect quote me if I am wrong..O k I have an interesting "ad em" If you have been following what I have written not only were we fired upon at our op, but informed to maintain Radio silence and all communication including our field telephone..As our HQ at the time we were waiting for the "UN" in New York to make a decision...Two days later our carrier came and picked us up..Is there anyway that I can get more official info of this incident...Cause we should not have been "stuck" there for 2 days..I have tryed to get any info from the UN or any official sight as to what official record if any..Can someone help me in the right direction as to how and where I can find out? Please do not flame me or ridicule me and say I am full of BS..All I am looking for is an official record..I wouldn't per say I was a POW or held hostage..But this happened over 30 years ago and I am still trying to sort this "fog" out. Thx in advance...I am am very weary about identifieng myself as what I thought were close friends and alllies etc..back in 98 when it "flooded" back in a very negative way I was ridiculed and harassed and told to "get over it" to the point i had the ombudsman involved...Alll I want is just closure and to live my life with dignity instead of ridicule or doubt..


----------



## Michael OLeary

Have you tried an Access to Information request?

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbsf-fsct/350-57-eng.asp


----------



## armyvern

Brihard said:
			
		

> No personal stabs intended there, dapaterson, I've got two log officers in my immediate family and respect what you guys do. I mistakenly assumed these ideas for new, shiny, unnecessary decorations came out of some committee sequestered downtown, and not from The Big Man himself. Apologies if you took that personally; plenty of people at NDHQ do valuable jobs- but there's also enough nonsense out of there to justify some occasional jest. That's all I intended by my 'disney' remark.



You think he'd be offended by your use of that term??

Have you missed the line under his user name - it's been there forever??

"I'm from NDHQ. I'm here to help."  >
_
~Vern runs quickly away ...~_


----------



## geo

Forgotten,

Being stuck out in the middle of nowhere while warring parties are slugging it out all around you is bound to be traumatic.  For that, I give you a tip of my hat... however, I have a nagging feeling that you will never find out WHY you were left out in your OP for two days.

Obviously things were happening & leaders (both political & military) were trying to decide what to do.  I can only presume that the military commander advised the politicos that they wanted to pull the OP while the politicos weren't sure what they wanted to do.

Anyway, glad you came out of it in one piece & have been able to move ahead.

Cheers!


----------



## Infanteer

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The discontent widens.
> 
> *Military medal rules 'callous,' family says *



As much as I sympathize with these families for losing their loved ones, the rule of combat injury seem quite clear cut.  If the accident occured in Canada, would it also merit the award?  Then we have no distinction for combat wounds, something we've been recognizing for a while.... :-\


----------



## armyvern

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As much as I sympathize with these families for losing their loved ones, the rule of combat injury seem quite clear cut.  If the accident occured in Canada, would it also merit the award?  Then we have no distinction for combat wounds, something we've been recognizing for a while.... :-\



Exactly. This Sacrifice Medal is replacing the Wound Stripe.

No one was complaining when their loved ones weren't getting that; it may sound harsh to say ... but man ... this is nuts.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_ is a report that Minister McKay has entered the fray:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=61ae8988-bdf2-4091-911b-d4048d9f1941


> MacKay asks military awards committee to consider change for fallen soldiers
> *Families protest limit on Sacrifice Medal to 'hostile action' victims*
> 
> Richard Foot, Canwest News Service
> 
> Published: Friday, September 19, 2008
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay has intervened in the controversy surrounding a new medal for soldiers killed or injured in Afghanistan, asking a federal committee that oversees military awards to consider easing restrictions on who should receive the honour.
> 
> The families of at least 14 soldiers killed in Afghanistan are angry that their lost sons and husbands will not qualify for Canada's new military Sacrifice Medal because their deaths were not the result of "hostile action."
> 
> Of the 97 Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan since 2002, about a dozen have died from vehicle rollovers, accidental shootings or other mishaps, including one soldier who fell down a village well during a night patrol.
> 
> The office of Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean, which formally administers Canada's honours system, unveiled the Sacrifice Medal in August, along with eligibility criteria limiting it to military members killed or wounded since 2001 by enemy action.
> 
> Public anger over those rules erupted this week after Ben Walsh learned that his son, Master Cpl. Jeffrey Walsh, did not qualify for the honour. Walsh, 33, died in Kandahar in 2006, when he was accidentally shot by another Canadian.
> 
> Ben Walsh, who lives in Regina, helped organize an online petition to protest the rules surrounding the medal. By yesterday, the petition contained more than 2,500 names, including relatives of at least 14 soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
> 
> "I am absolutely appalled. I cannot believe that some soldiers will get this honour and others won't," says Dale Wilson, a resident of Kenora, Ont., whose son, Master Cpl. Tim Wilson, 33, died from his injuries in an armoured car crash in Kandahar in 2006.
> 
> "My son was doing his duty, operating in a combat zone. He and every other soldier killed over there in the service of their country should get the medal."
> 
> A senior member of Mr. MacKay's staff said yesterday that the defence minister believed Master Cpl. Walsh, for one, deserved the medal and had asked his department to re-examine his eligibility.
> 
> Mr. MacKay has also appealed to the honours policy committee, a multi-department board that oversees the rules for federal awards, to reconsider the rules for the Sacrifice Medal.
> 
> Any changes must be approved by a federal cabinet order and signed by the Governor General. However a spokeswoman for Ms. Jean's office said no changes to the rules were currently being considered by Rideau Hall.
> 
> Dale Wilson sent a protest letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians yesterday.
> 
> "For the first time in our lives we are truly ashamed of being Canadian," the letter said. "(Tim) was sent to Afghanistan by you, executing his duties as ordered. ... Do we tell our grandson, 'Oh yes, your daddy died for the country, but he didn't qualify for the Sacrifice Medal' -- he didn't qualify -- how much more could he give!"
> 
> © The Ottawa Citizen 2008​


----------



## Greymatters

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> International Law, (formed from the Hague Law, The Geneva Conventions etc) defines "war" as "Armed Conflict", ergo the name applicable is:



While a valid point, it makes little difference what international law says on this issue - what matters is how our political leaders desire to interpret the issue.  One excuse used in the past (1st Gulf War era) was that, in the absence of a formal declaration of war, no state of war existed, therefore no POWs could exist.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Exactly. This Sacrifice Medal is replacing the Wound Stripe.
> 
> No one was complaining when their loved ones weren't getting that; it may sound harsh to say ... but man ... this is nuts.



Maybe the fact that the Wound Stripe was not as well known, by the the civillian populace, as some people have claimed it is.

A medal, to most civillians, is a recognition that is known.  A patch on the arm is no different than a rank, marksman badge, a trades badge etc etc....it was only a dress disticntion.

dileas

tess


----------



## forgotten

OK its official I was informed by the CWO from the centre in Ottawa I am getting my wound stripe and they will hold an official presentation at my legion branch.. They have my files from the archives and it was red flagged..That was the only question they asked me was where to present it..and I said well I am no longer in the "system per-say' but my legion branch will doThis will hopefully give me some sort of closure in some way!! ..BTW thx everyone for the support and Input!! pro Patria..


----------



## armyvern

Greymatters said:
			
		

> While a valid point, it makes little difference what international law says on this issue - what matters is how our political leaders desire to interpret the issue.  One excuse used in the past (1st Gulf War era) was that, in the absence of a formal declaration of war, no state of war existed, therefore no POWs could exist.



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."


----------



## armyvern

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_ is a report that Minister McKay has entered the fray:
> 
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=61ae8988-bdf2-4091-911b-d4048d9f1941



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?


----------



## the 48th regulator

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?



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


----------



## gun runner

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


----------



## Greymatters

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...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

My brother-in-law died in a military vehicle accident in 1972, in Canada. I had his name placed in the *7th Book of Remembrance* http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/books/7thbook as recognition for his accidental military related death. That has satisfied us for recognition based on that criteria.


----------



## Infanteer

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?


----------



## George Wallace

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.


----------



## gun runner

Point taken GW. I guess that tradition is just that. Ubique


----------



## armyvern

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.


----------



## Old Sweat

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?


----------



## armyvern

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.


----------



## the 48th regulator

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


----------



## brihard

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.


----------



## Infanteer

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.


----------



## tomahawk6

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.


----------



## armyvern

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._


----------



## the 48th regulator

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


----------



## axeman

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 .


----------



## armyvern

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


----------



## the 48th regulator

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


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> I know where you are coming from.



You missed my edit.   :-*


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You missed my edit.   :-*



That why I luv ya babe, fast as a pistol.


How did you like my Highliter anology, witty eh?

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> How did you like my Highliter anology, witty eh?



Why, it's _almost_ as bright as my hair.


----------



## HItorMiss

You know it seems to me that the biggest argument is a semantic one.

The fact is sacrifice or not the criteria exist for a reason and that reason is to qualify, who, what, when, where, why and how. Should you fail to meet those criteria then you do not qualify. It's like a Basic para course, you can pass all the ground PO's but fail to walk off the DZ even on jump 5 you do not earn your wings. Some people may take issue with the how far back the medal is dated to, that I can understand in fact that argument makes perfect sense. If you are going to make something to replace something else then fully replace it. 

However as callous as this may be, those who died from wounds received in an accidental shooting or accident in an SDA, DO NOT qualify and that is simply that. They did not meet the criteria for the wound stripe and they do not meet the criteria for this new medal. The families received the memorial cross for the sacrifice they made of there loved one and that is simply that. End of debate, end of story there.

The dating as I said well that needs to be looked at.


Oh and as for calling it a trinket well that's better then what I call it, I have used the terms "cheap piece of tin", "meaningless garbage" etc etc. That's pretty much how I feel and I do have a wound stripe and I would rather not wear anything then wear this ridiculous thing..and in fact probably will do that and be charged rather then wear this medal. But this is just my personal thought and opinion on the medal.

EDIT: Grammar and speling etc etc..I am sure 9er will be along shortly to sort me out even more...she hasn't been so it's a work in progress as I spot things...LOL


----------



## George Wallace

BulletMagnet

Well said, and by a person more qualified than most to say it.

Sadly, one has to remember the fact that there have been suicides in theatres, and they too would qualify for this medal, should the criteria be changed to include all deaths or injuries.  That, I think would truly hurt the meaning of what the medal was supposed to represent.


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's not a trinket George, ......



I don't consider it a trinket.  The medal as awarded, following its criteria, is a worthy award.  

This is not the only medal currently being brought up as not being awarded to someone.  There are many people out there, whining for a medal for a wide variety of reasons, other than the criteria laid out for our various awards.  These people are degrading the medal's purpose with their "desire" (to be polite) for it to be awarded outside of its criteria.  To me these people are disgusting and cheapening medals down to the level of trinkets.   I find them (the people) disgusting in their attempts to do so.


----------



## the 48th regulator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't consider it a trinket.  The medal as awarded, following its criteria, is a worthy award.
> 
> This is not the only medal currently being brought up as not being awarded to someone.  There are many people out there, whining for a medal for a wide variety of reasons, other than the criteria laid out for our various awards.  These people are degrading the medal's purpose with their "desire" (to be polite) for it to be awarded outside of its criteria.  To me these people are disgusting and cheapening medals down to the level of trinkets.   I find them (the people) disgusting in their attempts to do so.



Some of those people, George, are the parents of the soldiers that have sacrificed their lives.


dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

Ok I am going to be a bit cold here and I will get slagged for it I am sure

Yes they died...it was tragic it was not something anyone wanted. But the circumstances are such that all the family is entitled to is the Memorial Cross FULL STOP.  They can want this medal all they want but they are not entitled, Their Son, Daughter,Husband, Nephew etc etc did not die in such a manner as to get this medal. Any argument past the criteria is playing with the name of the medal to twist it to their own ends period!

They are muddying and cheapening the meaning of this medal period.


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Ok I am going to be a bit cold here and I will get slagged for it I am sure
> 
> Yes they died...it was tragic it was not something anyone wanted. But the circumstances are such that all the family is entitled to is the Memorial Cross FULL STOP.  They can want this medal all they want but they are not entitled, Their Son, Daughter,Husband, Nephew etc etc did not die in such a manner as to get this medal. Any argument past the criteria is playing with the name of the medal to twist it to their own ends period!
> 
> They are muddying and cheapening the meaning of this medal period.



Had the mission (That of creating a medal that honours a sacrifice) been planned well, then there would have been no room for discussion.  Wouldn't you agree?

George Wallace has a superb thread, that deals with this.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

Honestly no I don't Tess

The simple fact is that you could call the medal purple monkey dishwasher!

What matters is the criteria which is iron clad in my book. What is happening is that people have decided that because of a semantic they should be entitled to this little gong too. And they are using the name to justify it. It's petty and it's sickening. If those soldiers were alive today I don't think anyone of them would want to see see them get this medal.

IMO


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Honestly no I don't Tess
> 
> The simple fact is that you could call the medal purple monkey dishwasher!
> 
> What matters is the criteria which is iron clad in my book. What is happening is that people have decided that because of a semantic they should be entitled to this little gong too. And they are using the name to justify it. It's petty and it's sickening. If those soldiers were alive today I don't think anyone of them would want to see see them get this medal.
> 
> IMO



Really,

And as a soldier that would have been entitled to the sacrifice medal, if you changed the date of my incident i.e if it happened now, I have no idea of what they would think?

Gee thanks, but I think you are wrong with that statement.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> You know it seems to me that the biggest argument is a semantic one.
> 
> The fact is sacrifice or not the criteria exist for a reason and that reason is to qualify, who, what, when, where, why and how. Should you fail to meet those criteria then you do not qualify. It's like a Basic para course, you can pass all the ground PO's but fail to walk off the DZ even on jump 5 you do not earn your wings. *Some people may take issue with the how far back the medal is dated to, that I can understand in fact that argument makes perfect sense. If you are going to make something to replace something else then fully replace it. *
> 
> However as callous as this may be, those who died from wounds received in an accidental shooting or accident in an SDA, DO NOT qualify and that is simply that. They did not meet the criteria for the wound stripe and they do not meet the criteria for this new medal. The families received the memorial cross for the sacrifice they made of there loved one and that is simply that. End of debate, end of story there.
> 
> The dating as I said well that needs to be looked at.
> 
> 
> Oh and as for calling it a trinket well that's better then what I call it, I have used the terms "cheap piece of tin", "meaningless garbage" etc etc. That's pretty much how I feel and I do have a wound stripe and I would rather not wear anything then wear this ridiculous thing..and in fact probably will do that and be charged rather then wear this medal. But this is just my personal thought and opinion on the medal.
> 
> EDIT: Grammar and speling etc etc..I am sure 9er will be along shortly to sort me out even more...she hasn't been so it's a work in progress as I spot things...LOL



Actualy Tess I am with you on the date issue...as per the bold statement above


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Actualy Tess I am with you on the date issue...as per the bold statement above



I am not talking about the date issue, I am talking abou how you feel you know what the dead troops would think, as aopposed to those of us who have as well served, and sacrificed.  Regardless of time of injury.

That is what intrigues me about your post, not the timeline allownace for the medal.  I agree with you that the time period criteria sucks, but do you actually think that the soldiers would deny receiving the medal?

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

Tess

I am surprised you would even ask that to be honest, I cannot think of any soldier I have ever met worth his boots that would want to recieve a medal they knew they were not entitled to because of some little semantic wording. So yes I believe Most especialy in Jeff Walsh's case who'm I knew fairly well he would not want this medal. 

IMO

EDIT: Added the fact that it is my opinion that Jeff would not want to recieve this medal based on my personal knowledge of him.


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Tess
> 
> I am surprised you would even ask that to be honest, I cannot think of any soldier I have ever met worth his boots that would want to recieve a medal they knew they were not entitled to because of some little semantic wording. So yes I believe Most especialy in Jeff Walsh's case who'm I knew fairly well he wuld not want this medal.



Brother,

We are letting our emotions get in the way, and I am completely guilty of doing that.

But, I offer the view of somone who has 14 years of thinking letting me speak.  This is unfair to you and Jeff.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

Agreed on the emotions bit Tess.

I think on this part of the debate not on the date issue we have to agree to disagree, I don't see either of us changing the way we are looking at the issue anytime soon.

No worries


----------



## George Wallace

Just a point that BulletMagnet brought up, as did a few others, and a point that is being overlooked:

Tess, do you know about the Memorial Cross?  It covers the criteria that these folks are 'crying out' about.


----------



## the 48th regulator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just a point that BulletMagnet brought up, as did a few others, and a point that is being overlooked:
> 
> Tess, do you know about the Memorial Cross?  It covers the criteria that these folks are 'crying out' about.



You mean this memorial cross?

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group09

*Memorial Crosses*
The Memorial Cross (more often referred to as the Silver Cross) was first instituted by Order-in-Council 2374, dated December 1, 1919. It was awarded to mothers and widows (next of kin)  of Canadian soldiers who died on active duty or whose death was consequently attributed to such duty.


as opposed to;

*Sacrifice Medal*
Artistic rendering, creation of the Chancellery of HonoursBackground
The Sacrifice Medal was created to recognize a member of the Canadian Forces, a member of an allied force, or a Canadian civilian under the authority of the Canadian Forces who, as of  October 7, 2001, died  or was wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of hostile action. 

George,

I think you summed up your argument elequently, when you started the thread abou the name of the medal.

However, you constant posts, with regard to the next of kin likening them to greedy people looking out for themselves, really exemplifies what pisses me off about the medal.

I have summed up my feelings here ;
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/79731/post-760014.html#msg760014

This medal was ill thought, full stop.  The issueing of the wounded stripe, in the last 20 years was a disgrace, Full Stop.  They trying to fix it with this fantabulous medal, was a mistake, full stop.

As I said it took one diplomat, and a few interpreters to convince the power that be, to include them in the receiving of this medal.  How many forgotten Canadian soldiers will it take to fix their wrong?


dileas

tess


----------



## Pea

I've been following this thread for a while now, and have stayed out of it because I have basically zero CF experience to date. However, I just can't seem to wrap my head around the argument. I don't understand what the big deal is? There is a new CF medal that not everyone qualifies for, and because of that we need to change it? So what about The Campaign Star vs the SWASM. They are pretty much the same thing, but not everyone gets one or the other, or both. When it comes to this medal it says that you must have been killed/wounded as a direct result of hostile action. That is the criteria. Yes not everyone killed overseas qualifies over it. However, they do qualify for something. Their personally selected loved one gets the Memorial Cross to represent the Ultimate sacrifice they have paid. They are not being "forgotten, or left out." They are getting the medal that their situation meets the criteria for.

There are many medals that we will never qualify for, or receive. Does that mean we should work on changing criteria on those too until it's something we can all qualify for? Doesn't that take away from the whole point of having different medals?

Also, why is it we are looking to have this criteria changed now? Previously the criteria for the wound stripe did not include it being awarded posthumously. This new medal however does allow this. I'm curious as to why people weren't arguing that fact beforehand? Is it different now because this is a shiny medal? 

I mean no disrespect to any of the fallen soldiers we have lost over the years, as they have paid the ultimate sacrifice and nothing should ever take that away from them and their families. 

I do agree on the date factor though. If this is indeed replacing the wound stripe, then I don't understand why it wouldn't be awarded to all those that have previously been awarded it.


----------



## George Wallace

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> You mean this memorial cross?
> 
> http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group09
> 
> *Memorial Crosses*
> The Memorial Cross (more often referred to as the Silver Cross) was first instituted by Order-in-Council 2374, dated December 1, 1919. It was awarded to mothers and widows (next of kin)  of Canadian soldiers who died on active duty or whose death was consequently attributed to such duty.



Today, all Service Members annually fill out the forms indicating who they want to have a Memorial Cross presented to.  The form has spaces for three separate nominations.  It does not restrict its presentation to mothers or widows (next of kin).  Ten years ago, no one filled out these forms, and the Memorial Cross was presented in accordance with what some Clerk or Bureaucrat felt was correct.


----------



## the 48th regulator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Today, all Service Members annually fill out the forms indicating who they want to have a Memorial Cross presented to.  The form has spaces for three separate nominations.  It does not restrict its presentation to mothers or widows (next of kin).  Ten years ago, no one filled out these forms, and the Memorial Cross was presented in accordance with what some Clerk or Bureaucrat felt was correct.



So they did not look a the form, simmilar to a will, to see who next of kin was? 

Are you also saying, that by the three spaces I could my name down each time?  That there is a possibilty, that had I still served, I could nominate myself, and be awarded it posthumously?  And no one knows this?

I learn something again today!

dileas

tess


I find that hard to beleive, or a criticism of the clerical sytem within the CF, not a standard.

These parents are asking for their child to be sacrificed by giving up their llives, as per the name of the medal.  It's not for them.

A sacrifice medal.  Not a medal dedicated to the wounded (Which we are all debating). Not a medal dedicated to those who died (With a new definition is broad and generous, meaning to members ouside of the Canadian Military).  Not a Medal that they want to claim as their own.

Why is that so hard to understand?

dileas

tess


----------



## aesop081

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Why is that so hard to understand?



I could tell you the same thing Tess.


----------



## Infanteer

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So they did not look a the form, simmilar to a will, to see who next of kin was?
> 
> Are you also saying, that by the three spaces I could my name down each time?  That there is a possibilty, that had I still served, I could nominate myself, and be awarded it posthumously?  And no one knows this?



No - because it is a command responsibility, directed from higher, to have these reviewed to ensure they are both up to date (no ex-girlfriends or the like) and that any irregularities are addressed (Nobody put down, next of kin ignored, etc).  This way, if something happens there won't be a national bunfight over Memorial Crosses.



> Why is that so hard to understand?



As Aviator said, ditto back.  The criteria are spelled out in black and white, and it takes 30 seconds of thought to see what kind of effect moving the criteria would have.  We could have called the thing the "Victoria Cross" and the situation would have been the same - criteria covers a specific condition that wasn't meant in these instances.

Anyways, this is rapidly entering the spin-cycle and I'm going to recommend a lock as the line of scrimmage has been set and I don't see any movement in the future.


----------



## HItorMiss

You know what MediPea has raised a point even I over looked...

Why is it now that it is a medal do people feel that the criteria needs to be changed. Why is now that those families or even vets have raised an issue with it? That is actually causing me a great deal of thought....


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> You know what MediPea has raised a point even I over looked...
> 
> Why is it now that the it is a medal do people feel that the criteria needs to be changed. Why is now that those families or even vets have raised an issue with it? That is actually causing me a great deal of thought....



Timing of the issue of the medal?

Until it was, the criteria and even the look was a mystery.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

Maybe I am a sinic

But I sort of believe that when it was "just" a piece of cloth no one cared. But now that it's a shiney it's suddenly important.


----------



## Armymedic

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> when it was "just" a piece of cloth no one cared. But now that it's a shiney it's suddenly important.



Regardless, this is one award I never want to recieve or be given to my family.

Perhaps it is the name of the award needs to change.


----------



## HItorMiss

No Prairie Dog you sure don't

We shouldn't have to change the name to avoid an argument based on a semantic, The criteria is set, the same criteria as the Wound Stripe except you can noe recieve it posthumoulsy. Perhpas removing that would settle the argument.


----------



## the 48th regulator

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Maybe I am a sinic
> 
> But I sort of believe that when it was "just" a piece of cloth no one cared. But now that it's a shiney it's suddenly important.



I said it once on this thread, and I will say it again, read my ake on why no one cared about the stripe.  It was no one knew about it.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

I will agree the public didn't and you now what I was happy they didn't. I could careless what the public thought of my piece of cloth because I knew what it ment when I saw a soldier with one and I know what it means now.


----------



## RHFC_piper

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I will agree the public didn't and you now what I was happy they didn't. I could careless what the public thought of my piece of cloth because I knew what it meant when I saw a soldier with one and I know what it means now.




Heh... I get asked, all the time, if it is some kind of "time in" badge... like a 5 year stripe or something.


As for the ongoing debate here; I have to agree with BM on this...  The criteria has been set based on the Wound Stripe with the addition of posthumus award... If everyone was handed the medal because they were injured during operation, then it would severely reduce the meaning and sentiment behind it.  
And, I agree that the only reason why anyone seems to care about this now is because now its a gong and not a piece of cloth...  What would have happened if they had changed the criteria for the wound stripe to include posthumus award?  Would anyone fight this hard for a bit of gold string on an inch of cloth?  

Personally, I'm of the opinion that this medal is a knee-jerk reaction to public sentiment brought forward to politicians looking at their approval ratings... I appreciate the sentiment, but quite honestly, I could think of a few other things that would help support wounded members more than a gong... I will gladly give up my wound stripe and/or sacrifice medal for a better quality of medical care, cause, again quite honestly, what I would characterize as when my sacrifice started was when I got home to an unprepared medical and support system.

I also agree with all who have stated the Sacrifice Medal is misnamed.   It eludes to the concept that it is for anyone and everyone who personally feels they have sacrificed something... Everyone who deploys sacrifices something in some way... but where is the line?  
Perhaps it is just a poor choice of name which has caused all the issues.

Either way, I still have to sympathize with the families of soldiers who have died in operation and do not meet the criteria for the medal.  I couldn't even imagine how much they feel they have sacrificed, and I understand the want to be included in this recognition, but there is a criteria for a reason...  


Personally, I think, if they really wanted to update the wound stripe, they should have just kept the stripe and gone back to the origins of it and made it out of brass/gold metal instead of a chunk of cloth... there; tradition and bling.


----------



## dapaterson

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm of the opinion that this medal is a knee-jerk reaction to public sentiment brought forward to politicians looking at their approval ratings... I



Make that "brought forward by the (then) CDS without any consideration of issues such as this" and you'll be on target.


----------



## RHFC_piper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Make that "brought forward by the (then) CDS without any consideration of issues such as this" and you'll be on target.




I seem to recall a large group of MPs, MPPs and families of wounded soldiers bringing forward the idea of the "crimson maple leaf"...  I was even asked to participate in their efforts to push the idea forward (this was shortly after I came home, 2006)...  I declined.

So if this medal is solely the efforts of the CDS, then it was parallel to many other efforts to accomplish the same thing.  



More links to crimson maple leaf:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060921/medals_wounded_060921/
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080829/national/new_medal


More on the Sacrifice Medal:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/08/29/6611426-cp.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jumping on the political bandwagon alert!  

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Sask premier wants GG to award medal to soldiers killed in accidents*
John Cotter, Canadian Press via Canoe.ca, 24 Sept 08
Article link

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is calling on Ottawa to change its policy on when to award a new medal created to honour soldiers who die or are wounded as a direct result of hostile action in dangerous places such as Afghanistan.

Since the Sacrifice Medal was introduced last month, the families of some soldiers who have died in accidents in the conflict zone have complained that the military has told them that their loved ones don't qualify for the honour.

Wall has asked Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean in a letter to reverse the decision and cited the case of Master Corporal Jeffrey Scott Walsh of Regina who died in August 2006 in an accidental shooting while on patrol in Kandahar.

"To my mind, the origin of the fatal bullet is in no way germane to the one central fact: Master Corporal Walsh died serving his country in a combat theatre," Wall wrote. "He made the ultimate sacrifice for you and me, for our country and in the selfless service of others. He should be eligible for the Sacrifice Medal.

"I respectfully request on behalf of the Province of Saskatchewan, the Walsh family and in the memory of this Canadian hero, this decision be reversed."

The silver medal has the image of the Queen on one side and is backed with a representation of the statue that forms part of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial in France, along with the inscription "Sacrifice".

When Jean announced the new medal on Aug. 29, she said that soldiers deserve the utmost respect and deepest gratitude of Canadians and that the award recognizes the valued contribution of those who sacrifice their health or lives while serving Canada.

An official at the Governor General's office referred questions about the Sacrifice Medal to Defence Department officials, who were not immediately available for comment.

Wall said he hopes his letter will prompt other Canadians to contact the Governor General and the federal government about changing the policy.

"Here is an opportunity to make improvements to the Sacrifice Medal," he said. "We hope making the letter public will encourage others who may want to help. We would like to see Canadians make this suggestion."

Ben Walsh said he was heartened by Wall's letter and it hurt being told by the military that his son wasn't eligible for the award.

Walsh said such a change would be important to his son's widow and three children and the families of other soldiers who died while serving in Afghanistan.

"I think when a young soldier gives his or her life for their Canada it is the least the government and the Governor General's office can do," said Walsh, whose living room is filled with pictures of his son in his uniform along with a display case of copies of the medals that his son did receive.

"It is time for the Governor General of Canada to speak out."

Parents of three Nova Scotia soldiers who died in Afghanistan in accidents have also said they want to know why their sons don't qualify for the Sacrifice Medal.

An expert on the military suggested that it would be helpful if Canadians understood why the military considers it to be important to have a medal that is awarded specifically to soldiers who are killed or wounded on the battlefield.

Jack Granatstein said soldiers who are involved in hostile action against an enemy have the highest status in the military.

Canadian soldiers wounded in action were once allowed to wear a special stripe on the sleeve of their uniform. In the United States, military soldiers who are killed or wounded in action receive the Purple Heart.

"Someone who is wounded or killed in action is entitled to recognition of a kind that someone who is killed in a car accident or killed by friendly fire is not," said Granatstein, an historian who is a member of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

"It is an indication that they have faced the most severe test that soldiers face - coming under fire and dealing with the enemy."


----------



## armyvern

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Jumping on the political bandwagon alert!
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "To my mind, the origin of the fatal bullet is in no way germane to the one central fact: Master Corporal Walsh died serving his country in a *combat theatre*," Wall wrote. "He made the ultimate sacrifice for you and me, for our country and in the selfless service of others. He should be eligible for the Sacrifice Medal.
Click to expand...


Geez, I'd say. Here we go again. NO WHERE in the criteria does it state "Combat Theatre". That is NOT a pre-requisite. It says "Hostile Intent". Period. Full Stop. Germane to THE central fact regarding eligibility is "Hostile Intent" which occurs on UN Tours (note: these are not classed as "combat zones") as well (ask Tess, ask the widow of Paeta Huss Von Kreudner - as a couple of examples) ... death due to an accidental (or negligent) discharge is NOT hostile Intent - no matter where it occurs. Combat theatre, in Canada, on a UN tour - NO "Hostile Intent" equals not eligible.

I really hate to point out that some of the families are, on the one hand, arguing "don't charge the guy who had the ND as *it was an accident * and he didn't mean to kill my loved one", but on the other hand (ie Now) are arguing that there somehow WAS "hostile intent" involved for purposes of this medal.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Geez, I'd say. Here we go again. NO WHERE in the criteria does it state "Combat Theatre". That is NOT a pre-requisite. It says "Hostile Intent". Period. Full Stop. Germane to THE central fact regarding eligibility is "Hostile Intent" which occurs on UN Tours (note: these are not classed as "combat zones") as well (ask Tess, ask the widow of Paeta Huss Von Kreudner - as a couple of examples) ... death due to an accidental (or negligent) discharge is NOT hostile Intent - no matter where it occurs. Combat theatre, in Canada, on a UN tour - NO "Hostile Intent" equals not eligible.
> 
> I really hate to point out that some of the families are, on the one hand, arguing "don't charge the guy who had the ND as *it was an accident * and he didn't mean to kill my loved one", but on the other hand (ie Now) are arguing that there somehow WAS "hostile intent" involved for purposes of this medal.



No Vern,

They are arguing that their son's death was a _Sacrifice_, that should be recognized.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> No Vern,
> 
> They are arguing that their son's death was a _Sacrifice_, that should be recognized *because he died in a combat theatre. (my addition)*.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



They have added "Combat Theatre" to the arguement Tess. Read the comment that I quoted. "That he died in a combat theatre serving his country is germane to the argument". <--- Not my words.

Tell me, just what is the "difference" between their son's Sacrifice to his country due to an ND, and that of the young Cpl killed by an ND here in Gagetown years ago?

That their son was in a "combat theatre"? Does their son deserve it more because he was killed by an ND in a "Combat Theatre"? Seems to me that "expanding" the criteria to include "combat theatre" is NOT going to solve the issue on iota is it? What about my friend Mike Abel killed by an ND in Somalia? That wasn't a "combat theatre" and it wasn't "Hostile Intent". So he doesn't qualify either. Now we are seeing "combat theatre" get added. That's NOT a criteria. Their son does not, just as my friend, does NOT meet the criteria.

Changing the criteria to include their son may make them happy, but it won't make the parents of those killed by NDs in "non-combat theatres" or "in Canada" happy will it? Why would their sons sacrifice not be worth the same as their sons?

It only moves the hurt onto someone else and someone else's family.

There's a criteria. It was valid and not questioned for the Wound Stripe and no one complained, but now that it's a medal ... apparently it's (the criteria) no longer "acceptable". I have BIG issues with that.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Vern,

Not to sound redundant, but George's thread, address' alot of this.

The name of the medal, does not follow the language of the the criteria.

Hence the confusion, and angst by the family, loved ones, and the general public.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> Not to sound redundant, but George's thread, address' alot of this.
> 
> The name of the medal, does not follow the language of the the criteria.
> 
> Hence the confusion, and angst by the family, loved ones, and the general public.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



The name is not appropriate, but changing the name will STILL not make their son "entitled" so they STILL won't be happy. 

The "name" is a strawman arguement, at best; let's all face the facts right now - the complaints are coming from people whose loved ones do not qualify as per the "hostile intent" criteria --- and that is why they are upset.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The name is not appropriate, but changing the name will STILL not make their son "entitled" so they STILL won't be happy.
> 
> The "name" is a strawman arguement, at best; let's all face the facts right now - the complaints are coming from people whose loved ones do not qualify as per the "hostile intent" criteria --- and that is why they are upset.



Sacrifice Medal.

As I said many many posts ago.

When people look at my Wound stripe what language sounds better.

"I was injured over seas"  or "I was wounded over seas"

A guy walks into the MIR and is limping.  When asked he says

"I was injured on a run"  or "I was wounded on a run"

Both of us have made a sacrifice, however language distingusishes the two situations

This may be a Strawman's argument, but the name of the medal is misleading, therefore the strawman's argument is not actually what it is.  It further proves that this medal, although the intent is good, was not well thought out.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> *
> Both of us have made a sacrifice, however language distingusishes the two situations*
> 
> This may be a Strawman's argument, but the name of the medal is misleading, therefore the strawman's argument is not actually what it is.  It further proves that this medal, although the intent is good, was not well thought out.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



That's right. Language differentiates between the two situations. In this case, the language is "Hostile Intent" that differentiates just as it ALWAYS has ...

But now, suddenly, the criteria/name were not well thought out.

Sorry, but changing the name will NOT fix the complaints. Neither will changing a criteria that was prefectly acceptable for years.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's right. Language differentiates between the two situations. In this case, the language is "Hostile Intent" that differentiates just as it ALWAYS has ...
> 
> But now, suddenly, the criteria/name were not well thought out.
> 
> Sorry, but changing the name will NOT fix the complaints. Neither will changing a criteria that was prefectly acceptable for years.










To you Vern it may not, because you understand the criteria.  However, the name of the medal has brought on this argument, and because of that, the criteria is being attacked.

Had this been named anything else, that would match the criteria, we would not see this.  You even alluded to this with regards to the Wounded Stripe many times on the threads.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> To you Vern it may not, because you understand the criteria.  However, the name of the medal has brought on this argument, and because of that, the criteria is being attacked.
> 
> Had this been named anything else, that would match the criteria, we would not see this.  You even alluded to this with regards to the Wounded Stripe many times on the threads.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Whooooaaa on the horsey. Is it not your argument that the *criteria* is wrong?


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Whooooaaa on the horsey. Is it not your argument that the *criteria* is wrong?



Yep.

According to the name of the Medal, and the time limit associated with the issueing of it.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> According to the name of the Medal, and the time limit associated with the issueing of it.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



OK, so we call it the "Wound Medal" (Why not? It worked for the Wound Stripe with the same criteria) ... are those families any happier now?

Honestly ...

(I agree with your time limit observation - as already noted in previous posts. I don't believe though that a name change will fix anything - fact is that parents want this medal for their sons/daughters. They won't be happy with a name change - they want the medal. They want a criteria change.)


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> - the complaints are coming from people whose loved ones do not qualify as per the "hostile intent" criteria --- and that is why they are upset.



I think this may be the central part of the argument.  These people, in their grief are equating any and all deaths as being simple "a Death", all one and the same.  They aren't differentiating between circumstances.  To them a fatality by hostile action is the same as a fatality due to being hit by a bus; a Death.  To them it doesn't matter the circumstances.  They really don't care about "criteria".


----------



## the 48th regulator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think this may be the central part of the argument.  These people, in their grief are equating any and all deaths as being simple "a Death", all one and the same.  They aren't differentiating between circumstances.  To them a fatality by hostile action is the same as a fatality due to being hit by a bus; a Death.  To them it doesn't matter the circumstances.  They really don't care about "criteria".



Bang on.

They are Shocked that the _Sacrifice _ of their loved one is not the same _Sacrifice _ as others who are awarded the medal due to hostile methods.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Bang on.
> 
> They are Shocked that the _Sacrifice _ of their loved one is not the same _Sacrifice _ as others who are awarded the medal due to hostile methods.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



No one disagrees with that Tess, but even IF the name of the medal is changed to a more fitting/appropriate one ...

Do you HONESTLY think these families will be happy until the criteria is changed to render their loved ones eligible for it's awarding? Honestly.


I don't. We're seeing "criteria creep" already occuring now with the move to insert new comments to justify it's AWARDING (not renaming) to thier loved ones like "but he was killed in a combat theatre". That's criteria creep, it's nothing to do with the name of the medal. So, if we move the criteria to include those killed by NDs/accidents etc in "combat theatres" then are we not then just pushing the hurt onto more families? Because, no matter what the name of the medal is, all that criteria creep will accomplish is to make the families of those "volunteers" killed "performing their duties to Crown and Country" who were killed due to accidents/NDs while "not in combat theatres" be made to feel that their own loved one's death is somehow lesser.

By their comments to justify their own loved one's earning of it "due to accidents *in combat theatres*", they are now using criteria creeping to make their own loved ones _Sacrifice_ out to be greater than that of other soldiers who've died due to the exact same causes while perfoming their Duty to Crown and Country IN Canada or on UN tours, elsewhere. And, I'm sorry - it's NOT more worthy than theirs either - it was AN accident! It's not more of a _Sacrifice_ because of where it occured. 

This medal is awarded because of HOW a death or injury occured (hostile intent) not because of *where* it occured. This has been explained to them. And, maybe it's just me ... but even though I fully respect all of our soldiers, all of our fallen, and all of our injured ... I DO believe that there is a distinct difference between those who have Sacrified due to a deliberate attempt by others who "intended to harm or kill them" and those who die in other circumstances where there was no "intent to kill or harm present (accidents or NDs if you will)". An accident is an accident - no matter where it occurs.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current criteria (save for the backdating) and I think all this move to "criteria creep" is plain old wrong, but now that the medal is out of the bag - a simple name change isn't going to fix anything because deep down inside - families *want it awarded * - *not renamed*.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Vern,

I give up.

We are arguing the same bloody point.

I am trying to explain, why I believe this medal has made the controversy.  As we all said, in a million ways from Timbuktu, that had the medal been left alone and the wounded stripe was still issued there would be no issue.  

Had the medal been called the Wounded Medal, Crimson Maple leaf, the I love tess 'cause he is a neat fellow award, or any other term I am sure the loved ones and others would not have been drawn to the medal.

However, would you agree (And in essence you do) that the word Sacrifice is what is causing the challenges?  

I have given the dictionary and my opinion, based on the name of the medal

I have given my reasons why I feel that the criteria for time limit stinks

Now as for the current criteria, if you take away the name, and break it down with this post by you, which perfectly shows the true meaning behind the medal;



We are bantering back and forth the same argument.  I, say the medal name and criteria do no match, and something must be done.  Either fix the name or issue the medal to these few soldiers.


dileas

tess


----------



## Panzertech

I like you prefer the wound strip it was something that set itself apart from just another medal. With all the Gimmie medal these for polishing a higher up's well you get That idea. Not a fan of the Wound Medal name as it is to close to wound stripe, blood medal doesn't take in to account the mentally injured (No matter your opinion on that). I never liked being a called combat casualty seems demeaning to me.  I prefer Combat wounded medal or Theatre Wounded Medal.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

It was originally going to be called the Maple Leaf


----------



## Infanteer

Starship Troopers had "The Wounded Lion".... ^-^


----------



## axeman

This one has never been considered a "GIMME" medal.  unless you get a gimme by taking an injury of any sort for a senior. The awarding of this medal  has as you have seen has been quite contentious . While the wording of the reasons for the award  has been muddled by unfortunate facts  that unfortunatly not everyone will be awarded it. and others who should be awarded it will not receive it do to the fact they will not accept it. For some others will have to get the paperwork started for them to be awarded it and it may come like a friends CD 2 in the mail . i kid you not a CD2  was delivered by mail .. . i am on my way downtown to VA to ensure another friends Sacrifice Medal is awarded.


----------



## forgotten

I would just like to thank you folks and as well for "The Centre" for their assistance in Finally getting my wound stripe!! I will be presented with at my former reserve Unit which i served in prior to going Reg force. They had to get my files from the national archives and as well all of my medical docs and my VAC files. i wanted to do this in a proper and legal way and as NOT to be branded as a "poser". I was fortunate enough to know while I was in the forces to document everything that happened, as we do get older and we suffer for the "follies" of our youth. You might NOT feel it then but ohhh God as the years pass your  like..What the??!! For anyone who is interested here is the URL for "The Centre". I have no complaints in any way about VAC and in particular the Centre..Both have been there for me.


http://www.dnd.ca/centre/engraph/home_e.asp


----------



## vonGarvin

Congratulations!  Perhaps you should change your moniker to "rembered!"


----------



## tristismilitis

[I am trying to explain, why I believe this medal has made the controversy.  As we all said, in a million ways from Timbuktu, that had the medal been left alone and the wounded stripe was still issued there would be no issue.  

Had the medal been called the Wounded Medal, Crimson Maple leaf, the I love tess 'cause he is a neat fellow award, or any other term I am sure the loved ones and others would not have been drawn to the medal.]

The above quote says it all. The wound stripe was for WOUNDED soldiers, not for fallen soldiers and I'm not sure why that had to change. This particular issue would not exist if not for the addition of "died...under honourable circumstances". 
Personally, if it was me looking down from above (regardless of how I died), I wouldn't want this medal, give it to the wounded soldiers who are still here to wear it. I know there are soldiers who are no longer with us that would agree. 
There is no way to take back what has been done, regardless of changing the name or the criteria, there are people who have been hurt.  This issue now is how to proceed in a way that is as fair as possible (if that is possible!). Instead of awarding the new medal to all fallen soldiers maybe they could just stick to the wounded soldiers. 
ALL of the fallen have their names written in the Book of Remembrance and their families wear the Memorial Cross to honour and remember the person they have lost. 

A medal isn't going to make things better for any of us, but so far it is making things worse.


----------



## Starlight31

Well, some interesting news!! Two of my friends (MMV) that were going to the GG's for the 12th of Nov were just notified that the SM ceremony is delayed.  They are looking at some of the regulations. 

From some of my other friends, I guess enough people raised enough hell to get a review done..


----------



## geo

Starlight31 said:
			
		

> Well, some interesting news!! Two of my friends (MMV) that were going to the GG's for the 12th of Nov were just notified that the SM ceremony is delayed.  They are looking at some of the regulations.
> 
> From some of my other friends, I guess enough people raised enough hell to get a review done..



If the people were entitled to em... there is no reason to delay the presentation of the medals.
If some people have been missed.... they can be scheduled for a subsequent presentation.


----------



## military granny

This is the note sent out.

Sacrifice Medal Inauguration Ceremony Postponed! 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sacrifice Medal Inaugural Ceremony postponement

All 50 guests must be contacted ASAP and informed the subject ceremony, which was planned for 12 Nov 08, has been postponed.

Key messages:

In light of the issues raised by members of the public with regards to the Sacrifice Medal following its announcement, the Minister of National Defence has asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to conduct a review of the criteria for the new Medal and formulate a recommendation to the appropriate Government Honours Committee. The review is currently underway and it has been decided that it would not be appropriate for the inaugural ceremony to take place before a final decision has been taken with regards to the future of the Medal.


----------



## HItorMiss

Maybe now they will scrap this rediculous thing!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Maybe now they will scrap this rediculous thing!



..or at least skim the 37 pages of this thread for some of the better ideas.


----------



## RHFC_piper

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Maybe now they will scrap this rediculous thing!



Agreed!



This has become a farce...  I'll keep my wound stripe; it has history, tradition and dignity... 3 things which seem to be lacking, or being stripped from, the "Sacrifice Medal".


----------



## Starlight31

I agree Piper, 

I was unlucky to get 2 of the damn things (WS).. Though I think the medal is a step in the right direction, and was done without malice.  I think it is everyone else's intent.  What I find crazy is the amount of people that are know asking for the medal, or asking "how can I get that medal" which is taking away from it.  As well, as thous before us (Before 2002 who the W/S)! I know of people that have redress in for Wound Stripes that clearly do not meet the criteria, now that the medal is out!! Man, a good day not to be a CO/RSM.  Good luck DHR!! I am sure all eyes are you.

Time will tell, until then, we watch and shoot. The medal is a go no matter what, the GG (Who announced it, and every news paper covered it) as well as the Queen have given it the green light. 

Should be interesting, and I already have people calling me asking me to mount their medals when they get them!! Just like my 2 friends, who I am honoured to do so, as so for any honour!!


----------



## forgotten

I finally received my wound stripe on Sunday Nov2ND...31 years after the fact.. It was a very emotional day..but positive..to me it was closure.I was not aware that there was so much controversy about the new medal etc. Again for all those who commented and helped Thank you!!


----------



## geo

military granny said:
			
		

> Sacrifice Medal Inauguration Ceremony Postponed!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In light of the issues raised by members of the public with regards to the Sacrifice Medal following its announcement, the Minister of National Defence has asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to conduct a review of the criteria for the new Medal and formulate a recommendation to the appropriate Government Honours Committee. The review is currently underway and it has been decided that it would not be appropriate for the inaugural ceremony to take place before a final decision has been taken with regards to the future of the Medal.


Dollars to doughnuts that the issues raised by the public means..... expect all former servicemen (and merchant mariners) wounded in their service to the country have applied to get one...

If this is the case - there is absolutely no excuse that justifies the situation where current recipients are "bumped"


----------



## 1feral1

forgotten said:
			
		

> I finally received my wound stripe on Sunday Nov2ND...31 years after the fact.. It was a very emotional day..but positive..to me it was closure.I was not aware that there was so much controversy about the new medal etc. Again for all those who commented and helped Thank you!!



Good on ya Forgotten.

Here's to ya  :cheers:

Glad to see you were finally awarded this Wound Stripe, which was rightfully yours so long ago.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## forgotten

Thx Wes there was lots of "beer down range" that day


----------



## forgotten

I had LOTS of friends who showed up from the RCMP, firefighters, Reg force, reserves couple of marines etc..This wound stripe i dedicated to  Peacekeepers..and I have been helping former Vets get help. The battle was won but the War continues..........


----------



## Starlight31

Forgotten, That is outstanding to hear  ;D.. and Geo, I agree %100... What about everyone prior to Oct 2001? WW1 WW2 etc..


----------



## geo

Starlight,
WW1 vets are, for all intents and purposes, gone. There should not be any posthumous awarding of sacrifice medals, for prior wars, to surviving families. Where would it end.... claims for medals going back to the foundation of the country? - I think not.
If a WW2, Korean conflict want to have a Sacrifice medal for their "blighty".... where is the harm in that?...  If they want one, I would be proud to staff their request within my area... but again - not to surviving families.

However, while this paper war is being fought, the Sacrifice medals owed to those who have recently had their own "blighty"... should be presented... and make that "PDQ" (purdy damn quick )


----------



## Franko

geo said:
			
		

> Starlight,
> WW1 vets are, for all intents and purposes, gone. There should not be any posthumous awarding of sacrifice medals, for prior wars, to surviving families. Where would it end.... claims for medals going back to the foundation of the country? - I think not.
> If a WW2, Korean conflict want to have a Sacrifice medal for their "blighty".... where is the harm in that?...  If they want one, I would be proud to staff their request within my area... but again - not to surviving families.
> 
> However, while this paper war is being fought, the Sacrifice medals owed to those who have recently had their own "blighty"... should be presented... and make that "PDQ" (purdy damn quick )



They've canvassed the troops in theater and asked if we'd be opposed to seeing it being backdated to 1938. No one has said no to my knowledge.

If we get it and they want it they should have it IMHO.

Regards


----------



## geo

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> They've canvassed the troops in theater and asked if we'd be opposed to seeing it being backdated to 1938. No one has said no to my knowledge.
> If we get it and they want it they should have it IMHO.
> Regards


I'd be really surprised if anyone currently serving was to object.
As I said, I'd be honoured to help staff the requests


----------



## RHFC_piper

WRT the posthumously awarding of the Sacrifice Medal; Why hasn't anyone ever tried to get the Wound Stripe awarded posthumously?  Would the same people who are fighting so hard to get the criteria for the Sacrifice Medal, and awarded posthumously , fight just as hard if there was no medal, just the wound stripe?  Meaning that; is it the recognition that people want, or is it just a shinny gong?  

This is what bothers me so much about this; it seems as though people are fighting for this thing 'cause it's a medal... No one ever fought to have the wound stripe awarded posthumously to people who don't fit the criteria.  In fact, the only person I've ever heard of fighting to get the wound stripe they're entitled to is Forgotten, who, in my humble opinion, deserves to wear it (good on you, Forgotten).  My point is, no one wanted this "recognition" this badly until it was shinny.  I understand the want to have family members recognized for their sacrifice, but we have plenty of other citations for that (Memorial Cross, MID, Campaign Medals, Wound stripe, etc.).   To be quite honest, I'm satisfied with my Wound Stripe and the only improvement I could want for it would be to have it made from brass, like the WW1 era wound stripes.

Anyway, that's enough ranting for me today.


----------



## the 48th regulator

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> WRT the posthumously awarding of the Sacrifice Medal; Why hasn't anyone ever tried to get the Wound Stripe awarded posthumously?  Would the same people who are fighting so hard to get the criteria for the Sacrifice Medal, and awarded posthumously , fight just as hard if there was no medal, just the wound stripe?  Meaning that; is it the recognition that people want, or is it just a shinny gong?
> 
> This is what bothers me so much about this; it seems as though people are fighting for this thing 'cause it's a medal... No one ever fought to have the wound stripe awarded posthumously to people who don't fit the criteria.  In fact, the only person I've ever heard of fighting to get the wound stripe they're entitled to is Forgotten, who, in my humble opinion, deserves to wear it (good on you, Forgotten).  My point is, no one wanted this "recognition" this badly until it was shinny.  I understand the want to have family members recognized for their sacrifice, but we have plenty of other citations for that (Memorial Cross, MID, Campaign Medals, Wound stripe, etc.).   To be quite honest, I'm satisfied with my Wound Stripe and the only improvement I could want for it would be to have it made from brass, like the WW1 era wound stripes.
> 
> Anyway, that's enough ranting for me today.




psst.

People are not arguing about the posumouth part, but how the dead incurred the death.  

The Government added the Posthumous part, not the families demanding the reviews of awarding it to their dead loved ones.

dileas

tess


----------



## RHFC_piper

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> psst.
> 
> People are not arguing about the posumouth part, but how the dead incurred the death.
> 
> The Government added the Posthumous part, not the families demanding the reviews of awarding it to their dead loved ones.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I'm aware.   But to clarify a bit;  Has anyone ever argued to have the wound stripe awarded to non-combat related injuries?  or even awarded posthumously?

And, my argument is also against the general idea of posthumous award, specifically if this medal is to replace the wound stripe.  As previously stated; we have a great number of other citations for those who have fallen in combat, as well as their families, and now the one citation which directly recognizes those who have been injured, in combat, and survived, has been altered.  I personally believe this diminishes the citation quite a bit... and as with the date, where is the line drawn?  I agree with predating this citation back to '38, but how expansive is the criteria going to get?  Will this be awarded to a soldier who tripped in KAF and broke their ankle while running for a bunker when the sirens went off 10 min after a rocket attack on the far side of the base?  'cause, if you argued it enough, that would qualify; Enemy fire: check, injury related to actions on enemy fire: check, in an operational area: check.  

In my own experience, I believe I barely qualify for the wound stripe; I was injured by friendly fire during an Op (Medusa), but it's not like I was doing anything... I ate breakfast...  I've been considering taking my stripe down, simply because I know there are people out there like Bullet Magnet who actually got shot, by the enemy, during combat... and by wearing my stripe I diminish the "value", if it can be called so, of his, which he earned in battle.  

I guess the real question I have is; if the Sacrifice Medal is to replace the wound stripe, why is the criteria so different.  And if is to enhance the meaning of the wound stripe and expand it to include everyone; why not keep the wound stripe to recognize those who have been wounded in combat by the enemy. (yes, I do realize I'd be taking down my stripe... but at least I'd know those who wear it have truly earned it.)

I know this rant seems a little bitter, but the whole idea of the WS was to recognize those who were injured by the enemy's doings.


----------



## the 48th regulator

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I'm aware.   But to clarify a bit;  Has anyone ever argued to have the wound stripe awarded to non-combat related injuries?  or even awarded posthumously?
> 
> And, my argument is also against the general idea of posthumous award, specifically if this medal is to replace the wound stripe.  As previously stated; we have a great number of other citations for those who have fallen in combat, as well as their families, and now the one citation which directly recognizes those who have been injured, in combat, and survived, has been altered.  I personally believe this diminishes the citation quite a bit... and as with the date, where is the line drawn?  I agree with predating this citation back to '38, but how expansive is the criteria going to get?  Will this be awarded to a soldier who tripped in KAF and broke their ankle while running for a bunker when the sirens went off 10 min after a rocket attack on the far side of the base?  'cause, if you argued it enough, that would qualify; Enemy fire: check, injury related to actions on enemy fire: check, in an operational area: check.
> 
> In my own experience, I believe I barely qualify for the wound stripe; I was injured by friendly fire during an Op (Medusa), but it's not like I was doing anything... I ate breakfast...  I've been considering taking my stripe down, simply because I know there are people out there like Bullet Magnet who actually got shot, by the enemy, during combat... and by wearing my stripe I diminish the "value", if it can be called so, of his, which he earned in battle.
> 
> I guess the real question I have is; if the Sacrifice Medal is to replace the wound stripe, why is the criteria so different.  And if is to enhance the meaning of the wound stripe and expand it to include everyone; why not keep the wound stripe to recognize those who have been wounded in combat by the enemy. (yes, I do realize I'd be taking down my stripe... but at least I'd know those who wear it have truly earned it.)
> 
> I know this rant seems a little bitter, but the whole idea of the WS was to recognize those who were injured by the enemy's doings.



You and I are in the same line of thought, and I have stated my opinions about the Government haphazardly created a medal, to appease their own minds about the mission, as I stated here;



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The challenge I see with the medal, was the fact that the Wound Stripe was only considered a dress distinction, not a recognition.
> 
> Further, it separates members serving, and veterans that are still living to those that were wounded in the Sandbox, as if this is a special war that we are fighting.  To me, no consistency.
> 
> Either give it to all that were wounded, or keep what we already have in place, the Wound Stripe.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



With regards to you taking down the stripe, I understand how you feel as I too was in that position once, however, this is how I believe we should look at medals and awards;



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> 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.



You would be doing a disservice to you, and your nation.  You earned it, and deserve to wear it proudly.

dileas

tess


----------



## Starlight31

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.

*Quote from 48th regulator*

Really well said!!!  Sorry, I didn't know how to insert this quote!  lol...


----------



## tristismilitis

> psst.
> 
> People are not arguing about the posumouth part, but how the dead incurred the death.
> 
> The Government added the Posthumous part, not the families demanding the reviews of awarding it to their dead loved ones.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess




I agree and I believe the best way to resolve the argument is to remove 'posthumous' from the equation entirely. I know this will make some families angry, but some families are already angry. The intent of the new medal was to replace the Wound Stripe, there was no need to add 'died honourably' to the criteria. 

I can only hope the committee that will be reviewing the criteria for the medal reads these posts.


----------



## geo

tristismilitis said:
			
		

> I agree and I believe the best way to resolve the argument is to remove 'posthumous' from the equation entirely. I know this will make some families angry, but some families are already angry. The intent of the new medal was to replace the Wound Stripe, there was no need to add 'died honourably' to the criteria.
> 
> I can only hope the committee that will be reviewing the criteria for the medal reads these posts.



For the posthumous presentations ..... their families received the silver memorial cross.


----------



## the 48th regulator

geo said:
			
		

> For the posthumous presentations ..... their families received the silver memorial cross.



Which is presented to the families, the new medal is presened to the fallen.

dileas

tess


----------



## geo

Yes, very much tess... but how far back do you go ?
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Montreal during the US invasion in & around 1776
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Chateauguay during the war of 1812
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Chateauguay during the Fenina raids
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Batoche during the Riel rebellion
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed in South Africa during the Boer war
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed get killed at Verdun
Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed in Vladivostok in 1919
etc, etc, etc


----------



## the 48th regulator

geo said:
			
		

> Yes, very much tess... but how far back do you go ?
> Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Montreal during the US invasion in & around 1776
> Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Chateauguay during the war of 1812
> Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Chateauguay during the Fenina raids
> Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed at Batoche during the Riel rebellion
> Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed in South Africa during the Boer war
> Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed get killed at Verdun
> Someone who had a great great great uncle get killed in Vladivostok in 1919
> etc, etc, etc



No,

But that is my argument.  They Changed the name of the medal and the way it is given, and saved their asses by issueing it to every only as far as the begining of this war.

I am for a medal, however the Government screwed this one up royaly.

_A Sacrifice medal. _  They really put thought into that. Died  (Therefore the mention of posthumous) or was wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of hostile action.  Who decides an honourable circumstance?

_The date of issue._  Yep, only those after as of  October 7, 2001.  Because anyone before that do not deserve their actions to be considered a "Sacrifice". 

So although this is another call for the merrigold round to start again, we can all agree that this medal was not very well thought out.  Good thing that they included Civillians, being it took the death of one Diplmomat to bring this about....

dileas

tess


----------



## geo

OK Tess, we're both singing from the same hymn book

Still baffled that they decided to postpone the presentation to those troops who were lined up for a visit to Ottawa


----------



## the 48th regulator

geo said:
			
		

> OK Tess, we're both singing from the same hymn book
> 
> Still baffled that they decided to postpone the presentation to those troops who were lined up for a visit to Ottawa



All Government action, was delayed because of the election.  Then, the issueing of the medal and the criteria is under review.

If the medal is changed, namewise etc etc, you would have a small group of people wearing the "old medal".

This is the Government, people can wait based on their timings, that is their view.  You know this.  Look how long it took to reenact the wounded stripe!  I was one of the first to receive it, and that was 1995, how about all the people since the Korean war?  They were only eligible after it was revived due to the multiple deaths and injuries in the Balkans.

dileas

tess


----------



## geo

yeah, yeah.... just thought / felt like we had moved on with Gen Hillier.
Almost feels like we're back to purely political decisions again - Sigh!


----------



## tristismilitis

> All Government action, was delayed because of the election.  Then, the issueing of the medal and the criteria is under review.
> 
> If the medal is changed, namewise etc etc, you would have a small group of people wearing the "old medal".



Not only that but if they remove the 'died honourably' from the criteria during this review (and I hope they do), and stick to presenting this medal to the wounded, there would be families that would have to give the medal back as this inaugural presentation included several families of fallen soldiers.
The families do have the Memorial Cross and the names of ALL the fallen soldiers are inscribed in the Book of Remembrance, IMHO this is appropriate and all that is needed.


----------



## forgotten

OK I decided to wear my wound stripe on my uniform on remembrance day..Yes I am retired but from what i was told that a wound stripe can ONLY be worn on a Dress Uniform..So I dug my uniform out and I was actually amazed it fit properly. Firstly i was amazed at about how many former or serving people DO NOT KNOW what a wound stripe is..I can understand so i explained..I was amazed just to sit back and watch the veterans and young soldiers how they conducted themselves, I was pleased!! However what happened next I felt insulted, i visited several veterans clubs and also encountered many civilians who were interested in my medals etc. some asked what the stripe was on my sleeve..some were nice but I can count about 4 people who were down right insulting..They said ooh you cut your self shaving to paper clip cut..One is even a city councillor..I'm sorry but call me over sensitive but after I got home i took my uniform off and my medals and decided i will never wear them again..NOW I can understand why some of my friends do not wear them ever..Its because of some flatfaced civi who has had too much to drink and decides its fun to insult a VET..My wound was and is serious and will never leave me..I don't feel that anyone who has never served has the right or even the balls to make light of it!! I did let them know that i was insulted and walked away..I go to remembrance days to remember my friends, or any one who has or is serving the military now!! nor some politician or civi who can only enter the Legion on remembrance and become complete morons..I'm sorry I might have offended anyone..But I WAS offended


----------



## RHFC_piper

forgotten,

Just to get the 'info' part out of the way; You can wear your wound stripe on a civilian dress jacket or service club blazer (same goes for medals), you've earned it.
But, I know... It just doesn't feel right without the uniform.


As for the rest of your post; I know how you feel.   This seems to happen most often to those of us who have been injured, but it's not immediately obvious (not missing limbs, just extra holes).  I have had the same experiences many times. I've been asked if the stripe represented years of service or courses, and even when I explain it just doesn't sink in.  And, I have been insulted by ignorant people, both civilians and fellow soldiers, mostly because when I wear my dress uniform I wear band dress (piper... thus the name). So I get comments like; "what did you do? pass out while playing the pipes?", etc, etc.  To be quite honest, there are days when even the friendly jabs, like "you forget to duck?", get old.  And you're right; this is part of the reason why some of us just want to take it off, and why a medal is just going to exasperate the situation. 

Either way; good on you for getting back into the gear ans wearing it proudly... don't let the ignorant dinks deter you from wearing your medals and honours.


----------



## Takeniteasy

To Forgotten;
Hopefully in a couple of days you will feel differently about wearing your earned honours. I would think about the people who were positive and appreciative for your service and pay no attention to those simple few who have no comprehension of what it means to serve with honour and pride be it active or retired. I hope you reconsider and understand that I along with the majority salute you.  

Duty With Honour


----------



## forgotten

Thank you for the replies...When they find out it was during peacekeeping they literally laugh and they have an opinion that we were doing nothing and they reply But it was not a war...That completely baffles me as we were in a country where two forces were trying to kill each other..LOL and the sad part was that one side figured that you were their "buddies" until the found out otherwise..Then both started shooting at you..and to make things worse we were not allowed to even fire back and if someone was wounded during a firefight..Our commanders had to check with the UN in New York and wait till the bureaucrat had his beauty sleep(joking) So I ask you and the GOVT that in a lot of cases that UN peacekeeping at time was certainly not a cake walk and they were defiantly not throwing flowers at us..So even if we do get the new medal will that maybe add more respect..I do not care for the money or whatever all I want is respect!!,, I still feel I am not "Home" yet...respect is not a medal or money its a respect of people understanding and listening to our stories with out ridicule..Is that too much to ask??  Thank god i have my humour and dignity..or i wouldn't be here now..


----------



## PMedMoe

Not to be rude, or take away from your pride of wearing your uniform and newly presented wound stripe on Remembrance Day, but don't retired military members need some sort of authority to wear their uniforms?


----------



## vonGarvin

Hey, forgotten, don't tell the flat-faced civvies you were "peacekeeping" (even if you were).  Just tell them what happened (in layman's terms) and that it was on Operation X.

Don't hang that uniform up!  If you want EVERYONE to show respect, it won't happen (too many jerks in our human race for that to happen).  Just focus on those who actually showed some respect.


----------



## forgotten

No you can wear your uniform when you retire..check with CFAO's
remembrance day is Classed as a special occasion


----------



## forgotten

BTW how does a person become a subscriber?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

forgotten said:
			
		

> BTW how does a person become a subscriber?



Right here


----------



## forgotten

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Right here



Thx whats the differrance between the two? Milnet.ca Subscriber
Milnet.ca Veteran


----------



## Nfld Sapper

forgotten said:
			
		

> Thx whats the differrance between the two? Milnet.ca Subscriber
> Milnet.ca Veteran



Oh you meant these:



> Army.ca Profile Rankings
> « Reply #2 on: October 13, 2006, 19:42:17 »  MilPoints
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Just for those who are curious and just have to know:
> 
> It refers to the number of posts that you have done (radio chatter ones aren't counted)
> 
> Guest                        0
> New Member              25
> Jr. Member                50
> Member                  100
> Full Member             250
> Sr. Member             500
> Army.ca Veteran    1,000
> Army.ca Fixture      5,000
> Army.ca Legend    10,000
> Army.ca Myth       15,000
> Army.ca Relic        20,000
> Army.ca Fossil      30,000
> 1,000,000 BC        40,000
> 
> Your ranking affects how many Private Messages you can store here, but has no other bearing on your access or abilities.
> 
> « Last Edit: November 10, 2006, 11:36:03 by Mike Bobbitt »


----------



## PMedMoe

forgotten said:
			
		

> No you can wear your uniform when you retire..check with CFAO's
> remembrance day is Classed as a special occasion



I couldn't find it in CFAOs (or DAODs) but I found this (scroll to bottom)



> Use of Rank and Uniform After Release
> 
> As a former member of the CF (officer or NCM) you may continue to use the rank title you held at the time of release, provided you were honourably released and had served in the CF for at least 10 yrs. In general, you may wear your uniform after release only when authorized by the CDS. You must obtain permission before each occasion. Military appearance must be maintained whenever uniform is worn. In addition, Commanders of Commands may grant limited, revocable authority for former members and civilians to wear CF uniforms and clothing items in public displays and performances and special events, if they are satisfied that no harm to the CF reputation will result.



and this:



> Question:
> 
> Now that I’m retired, can I still wear my uniform at official times like Remembrance Day? What about to my daughter’s cadet corps annual review, or to a family wedding?
> 
> Answer:
> 
> The simple answer to every part of this would be “no”.
> 
> Things are never that simple.
> 
> According to Queen’s Regulations and Orders 15.09(7), if you are a former CF officer or non-commissioned member (NCM) who was honourably released or whose name appeared on the now defunct Retired Lists, you may wear your uniform only when and where the Chief of the Defence Staff allows.
> 
> So, the CDS has final authority, except...
> 
> QR&O 15.09(7) is expanded upon by QR&O 17.06(3): If you were a member of the Regular Force or the Reserve Force and were released for a reason other than misconduct, you may wear your uniform—as authorized by a Commander of a Command or his/her designated authority, or by other officers designated by the CDS—at military entertainments or ceremonies where the wearing of a uniform is appropriate. Only the CDS may authorize the wearing of uniforms at other kinds of events or on other occasions.
> 
> So, by the authority of the CDS and Commanders of Commands and their designated authorities, you may wear your uniform to appropriate events.
> 
> As used here, designation is the appointment or selection of a person or office to perform a specific task or duty. Delegation, on the other hand, is the giving over of power or authority to someone else.



and the QR&O



> (7) A former officer or non-commissioned member mentioned in paragraph (2) or (3) may wear his uniform only at such times and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Chief of the Defence Staff.


----------



## jollyjacktar

forgotten, it's a shame you ran into some jerks.  As the old saying goes "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one", some sadly are just asshole opinions. 

Mortarman Rockpainter is spot on.  Ignore the idiots and focus on the decent folks out there.


----------



## forgotten

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Oh you meant these:


LOL ok thx for the info now i understand..thats nice a t-shirt coin and all that swag once you join..


----------



## forgotten

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I couldn't find it in CFAOs (or DAODs) but I found this (scroll to bottom)
> 
> and this:
> 
> and the QR&O



tends to be ambiguous But I did ask a CWO at NDHQ who then asked a Col and they said it was fine to wear. Also a retired CWO who mentioned I cannot wear the woundstripe on a civi blazer and only on my uniform and he was happy to see me wearing my uniform..he was at my ceremony an informed me because i was a retired member i was permitted to wear on special occasions..Umm not something I would wear regularly


----------



## PMedMoe

Not trying to give you a hard time or anything.  I was just curious as a friend did the same thing this year and then was told by his former CO that he wasn't allowed to wear his uniform.


----------



## RHFC_piper

forgotten said:
			
		

> tends to be ambiguous But I did ask a CWO at NDHQ who then asked a Col and they said it was fine to wear. Also a retired CWO who mentioned I cannot wear the woundstripe on a civi blazer and only on my uniform and he was happy to see me wearing my uniform..he was at my ceremony an informed me because i was a retired member i was permitted to wear on special occasions..Umm not something I would wear regularly



ADM (HR-MIL) INSTRUCTION 03/03
AWARDING AND RECORDING OF WOUND STRIPES


> Display: Wound stripes will be worn on CF uniforms in accordance
> with A-AD-265-000/AG-001 'Canadian Forces Dress Instructions'.
> Personnel, who by reason of their service have become entitled to
> wear a wound stripe, may, at their own option, continue to wear
> them on civilian clothes after cessation of military service.



Whether you want to wear it on your uniform or on a blazer, you earned it and you have the right to display it.


----------



## forgotten

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Not trying to give you a hard time or anything.  I was just curious as a friend did the same thing this year and then was told by his former CO that he wasn't allowed to wear his uniform.


ahhh ok but Did he RETIRE from the regular forces or only did under 20 years or less or a reservist? As well what was the occasion ya some COs can be a little odd at times.


----------



## forgotten

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> ADM (HR-MIL) INSTRUCTION 03/03
> AWARDING AND RECORDING OF WOUND STRIPES
> Whether you want to wear it on your uniform or on a blazer, you earned it and you have the right to display it.



Thank you!! I wish i could have had that with i didn't want or care to argue with that Old ppcli CWO, with out actual paperwork ya know the old "CYA" specially with a chief. BTW the letter i received from the Col  at the casualty management or "The Centre" I had it reduced in size and coated so it fits in my wallet if ever i was challenged by anyone..just to be safe


----------



## the 48th regulator

Forgotten,

Just remind the said rude people, that you do not need a plastic flower, and one day in November to remember.

Rememberance day lasts 365 per year, for you, and your scars are your reminder.

It usually shuts them up right quick.

dileas

tess


----------



## forgotten

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Forgotten,
> 
> Just remind the said rude people, that you do not need a plastic flower, and one day in November to remember.
> 
> Remembrance day lasts 365 per year, for you, andyou scars are your reminder.
> 
> It usually shuts them up right quick.
> 
> dileas
> 
> Tess


 Roger that Tess..I do volunteer work to help any vet from any period to get the help they deserve..I just got elected to an executive postion at my ANAF UNIT recently to carry on my work as sick and visiting..I concur that being a vet is 365 days as I never will or can forget..its my duty!!


----------



## Starlight31

Forgotten, 

      Do not take everything to heart that people say about the W/S or anything.  It is what you think/feel as an individual that really matters.  The fact that some folks are that rude, will never change.  However, what "we" as Soldiers (regardless of trade or tour) have had to endure to "earn" that wound stripe...  No one will ever know!!  So, to sit and debate with people who don't get it.... Will only end up with hurt feelings all around, regardless of the fact the people are civi's, Vets, and or still serving!

      After we got back from Afghanistan, we had all types of people who were awarded a W/S (I think 109 people), the fights that came out of that!!!  "oh you weren't really injured by the enemy, it was an A-10!!!!!", or "it was just a Land Mine"  imagine the up roar, and the nerve of people!!  This was from people off our same tour, some of them fought together on Op's!!.  So, sadly.... it is everywhere...  

      I hate the statement "It was just"... as it shows how much someone really knows about something (WRT Honours & Awards), or the person is trying to make them seem bigger, better than you... To many fights have happen over other Medals/Tours, it is just not worth the effort (IMHO)

      Chin up Brother... it's all good.. Karma has a funny way of working, but it always seems to come through!! I bet you the City Coun.  is worried you might say something, after you informed them of your displeasure!! 

Cheers


----------



## PMedMoe

forgotten said:
			
		

> ahhh ok but Did he RETIRE from the regular forces or only did under 20 years or less or a reservist? As well what was the occasion ya some COs can be a little odd at times.



Retired from the RegF with well over 20 years service and it was a Remembrance Day parade.


----------



## mariomike

My ( civilian ) opinion is to call it what it is. The Killed ( or Wounded ) in Action Medal. 
If I may say so, the Wound Stripe and Memorial Cross have served Canada well since World War One, and still do. 
If the new medal is to be introduced, I would like to see it suspended by a purple ribbon, identical to the Memorial Cross.


----------



## forgotten

OK I decided to start a new facebook acct  I hope no one objects..http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118738630166 its in reference to people who have received the Wound Stripe and certificate


----------



## the 48th regulator

forgotten said:
			
		

> OK I decided to start a new facebook acct  I hope no one objects..http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118738630166 its in reference to people who have received the Wound Stripe and certificate



How does someone go about obaining a certificate?  I was awarded the wounded stripe, does that mean that there is a ceertificate, indicate my award for it?

dileas

tess


----------



## dapaterson

There's an instruction on the Wound Stripe online at:

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pd/pi-ip/03-03-eng.asp


----------



## the 48th regulator

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There's an instruction on the Wound Stripe online at:
> 
> http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pd/pi-ip/03-03-eng.asp




Magic!!

I just whipped off an e-mail to my old unit to look into mine.

This is a PDF verson of it too.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pd/pi-ip/doc/03-03.pdf

dileas

tess


----------



## McG

The Canadian Army Journal update on the sacrifice medal:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_12/iss_1/CAJ_Vol12.1_04_e.pdf


----------



## forgotten

There have been changes made to the new medal..in regards to criteria..what is in that journal has or will be changed..The new criteria has been approved by the CDS and at present is with the Governor general to be signed off on....Source from David Pugglase(spelling)..Defence watch Ottawa Citizen


----------



## Michael OLeary

forgotten said:
			
		

> Source from David Pugglase(spelling)..Defence watch Ottawa Citizen



So, still rumour net until an official announcement is made.


----------



## dapaterson

forgotten said:
			
		

> There have been changes made to the new medal..in regards to criteria..what is in that journal has or will be changed..The new criteria has been approved by the CDS and at present is with the Governor general to be signed off on....Source from David Pugglase(spelling)..Defence watch Ottawa Citizen



The CDS cannot approve a medal.  He can review recommendations and endorse them, but he has no authority to approve them.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Just posted on forces.gc.ca

Sacrifice Medal to recognize all service-related deaths

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3173


----------



## old medic

Here is the CP story based on the above. 

Sacrifice Medal to honour slain soldiers: MacKay
By THE CANADIAN PRESS
19 Oct 2009


> OTTAWA — Every Canadian soldier who has died in Afghanistan will be recognized with a Sacrifice Medal under newly revised criteria released today by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
> 
> When first announced last year, the award recognized only soldiers killed or wounded by hostile fire.
> 
> An outcry from veterans groups and the families of soldiers killed in accidents forced the Defence Department to reconsider the eligibility rules.
> 
> MacKay says the revisions mean that all service-related deaths will be recognized.
> 
> Veterans of peacekeeping missions were also upset by the medal, which has an eligibility date of Oct. 7, 2001 — when Canada became formally involved in the Afghan war.
> 
> MacKay says the design and eligibility date will not be changed, and the first awards ceremony for the new medal will take place sometime later this year at Rideau Hall.


----------



## Sonnyjim

I was always interested in Nazi Germany's idea of decorating their soldiers with a 'Wound Badge' in three different classes, Black(1-2 wounds), Silver(3-4), and Gold (5 or more). With our modern army this would not be suitable as an all encompassing medal which is what I believe the 'Sacrifice Medal' is to convey. I am not suggesting a direct corallation to handing out medals based on the old Nazi system by the way. It would also be difficult to give this medal to those who are receiving the Sacrifice Medal or wound badges based on psychological wounds(I don't know if this even occurs). However, if a "Medal" is what they're looking for, a 'Wound Badge' is a step between a medal and a stripe but is still very visible to those who are looking(placed under the main rack of medals) and to me was an interesting concept to honouring those who were wounded serving their country. 

Link: http://www.angelfire.com/nj/ww2/woundbadge.html


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE

News Release
Sacrifice Medal to recognize all service-related deaths
NR–09.092 - October 19, 2009

OTTAWA - The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, today announced new criteria for the Sacrifice Medal. First announced in August 2008 by the Governor General as a formal recognition to those who are killed or wounded by hostile action, the eligibility criteria have been expanded to recognize all service-related deaths. This change will ensure that all service-related deaths after October 7, 2001, are recognized and treated equitably.

“The Government of Canada is committed to honouring and recognizing the valued contribution of our Canadian Forces members,” said Minister MacKay. “We hope this announcement will be warmly received by the families of those who sacrificed their lives while serving Canada.”

The criteria remain unchanged for those wounded as a direct result of hostile action requiring recorded treatment by a medical officer. Members of an allied force working as an integral part of the Canadian Forces (CF), such as exchange personnel, and civilian employees working under the authority of the CF will continue to receive the medal as per the previous criteria. This aspect of the Medal therefore remains linked with the old Wound Stripe which it replaced. The eligibility date and the design of the medal remain unchanged.

Her Majesty The Queen approved the creation of the Sacrifice Medal to provide formal recognition to those who are killed or wounded by hostile action. Following the original announcement in August 2008, the Minister of National Defence asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to conduct a review of the existing criteria and make recommendations to the appropriate government committee. Details regarding the new eligibility criteria of the Sacrifice Medal can be found at the following site: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/chart-tableau-eng.asp?ref=SM 
The inaugural presentation of the Sacrifice Medal is planned at Rideau Hall later this year.

-30- 

Note to Editor: Media representatives are invited to a technical briefing via teleconference on Monday, October 19, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. (EST). A subject matter expert from the Directorate of Honours and Recognition will discuss the changes made to the Sacrifice Medal criteria. To register for the briefing please call the DND/CF Media Liaison Office at 996-2353 before 3:00 p.m. (EST). 

For more information on the ceremony and Canadian Honours, please visit the Governor General’s website at: http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=5&lan=eng 

For more information on military honours, please visit the Department of National Defence Web site for CF Honours and Awards: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/index-eng.asp 


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3173


----------



## X-mo-1979

We had to fill out a survey last year while deployed about the changing criteria.The consensus with all my guys was that  anyone dying in a service accident etc should receive it as well.However they also were asking about service related injuries.Which we said no to as all we could picture is someone walking around with a wound stripe who broke a fibula playing ball hockey in KAF.We all agreed it would take away from the injured personnel whom got that way due to enemy action.


----------



## vonGarvin

> I am not suggesting a direct corallation to handing out medals based on the old Nazi system by the way.


The German honours and awards system as seen in the Second World War wasn't so much a "Nazi" system as it was a German system.  As an example to contrast, in our system, there are certain medals one can earn based on the event.  So, "Smokey" Smith fends off a German platoon single-handedly and earns the highest honour: the VC. If it were "Rauchich" Schmidt of the Wehrmacht fending off an Allied platoon single-handedly, the medal he would earn would depend on whether or not it were his first honour.  If so, he would get the Iron Cross, second class.  Next honour would be the first class, then on to the Knight's Cross, and so forth.


----------



## mariomike

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> The consensus with all my guys was that  anyone dying in a service accident etc should receive it as well.



Will it also include fatal heart attacks and cerebrovascular accident ( strokes )? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I wonder if "service related" will mean the same thing as "line of duty". If so, it may have a very broad definition.


----------



## Blackadder1916

mariomike said:
			
		

> Will it also include fatal heart attacks and cerebrovascular accident ( strokes )? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I wonder if "service related" will mean the same thing as "line of duty". If so, it may have a very broad definition.



The simple answer is yes (with a "maybe" depending on where and when it happens).

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/chart-tableau-eng.asp?ref=SM


> Eligible cases include but are not limited to:
> 
> . . .
> 
> death related to service, including:
> during training or operations, following a vehicle accident, plane crash, shipwreck, parachute or diving accident, loss at sea, an accidental discharge of weapons, an ammunition handling accident, a fire or explosion, fatal fall, *heart attack* or as a result of a heat stroke, physical exhaustion or stress during mandated training;
> accidental death when travelling on duty;
> death as a result of metal disorders that are, based on the review by a qualified mental health care practitioner, directly attributable to military service.


----------



## mariomike

Thank you. I had not read that link. It is specific and answered my question! 
( I should have done a more thorough *search* before asking! )

Peter Worthington:
"There are reasons to be wary of new Sacrifice Medal, which imbues virtue on those who are wounded"
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/01/14/8016636-sun.html


----------



## Loachman

So where does this end?

A death in a military vehicle accident in, say, Meaford now equates to a death resulting from an IED strike in theatre.

This botched medal has now essentially become a Memorial Cross duplicate, except surviving family members get, collectively, three Memorial Crosses but only one Sacrifice Medal. Somebody is going to protest the "fairness" of that, soon, no doubt, and argue for three Sacrifice Medals too.

And if a death is a death is a death, regardless of location or circumstance other than it simply be attrbutable to miltary service, how long until somebody successfully argues that an injury is an injury is an injury, regardless of location or circumstance?

The wound stripe was so much simpler, better understood, less controversial, and more indicative of its wearer's experience. We are all used to seeing medals, but the first wound stripe that I saw on a serving member's uniform caused something akin to mild shock. It stood out, like no medal could.

All that this has done is cause bitterness and ill will while trashing a significant and meaningful Canadian tradition, and I suspect that many will silently question its meaning when they see people wearing it. Remember all of those Purple Heart jokes on MASH?


----------



## Rheostatic

The DH&R page has been updated:





> The Medal was first announced on 29 August 2008 but some issues quickly became apparent, especially with regards to the ineligibility of accidental deaths. The Minister of National Defence asked the Chief of the Defence staff to conduct a review of the existing criteria and make recommendations to the appropriate government committee. The inaugural presentation ceremony, initially planned for 12 November 2008, was postponed until the conclusion of the review. The review resulted in a broadening of the posthumous criteria of the Medal to cover all service-related deaths rather that only those which were the direct result of hostile action. This change brought the posthumous aspect of the Medal in line with the newly amended criteria for the Memorial Cross, Memorial Scroll, Memorial Bar and for inclusion in the 7th Book of Remembrance. The other aspects of the Medal, including the criteria for wounded (which remained linked to hostile action and therefore to the old Wound Stripe which it replaced), the start date and the design of the Medal remained unchanged.


----------



## mariomike

From yesterday's Sun. 
Peter Worthington:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/10/23/11497346-sun.html


----------



## X-mo-1979

Loachman said:
			
		

> The wound stripe was so much simpler, better understood, less controversial, and more indicative of its wearer's experience. We are all used to seeing medals, but the first wound stripe that I saw on a serving member's uniform caused something akin to mild shock. It stood out, like no medal could.


Couldnt agree more.


			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> All that this has done is cause bitterness and ill will while trashing a significant and meaningful Canadian tradition, and I suspect that many will silently question its meaning when they see people wearing it. Remember all of those Purple Heart jokes on MASH?


And it already has.there are a few questionable wearers kicking around...and ton's of people bitter that the person got anything for it.Breaking a leg oversea's does not indicate a would stripe/metal in most of our eyes...yet there is a one walking around..his officer musta been able to write beautiful poetry I guess.And here he is looking the same as a guy who took rounds during a TIC.

Wait for it.Man "Dive's" for cover in KAF and sprains ankle.Sacrifice metal.


----------



## catalyst

Or...........

Timmies Worker burns hand while pouring coffee during rocket attack 

(insert civilian cleaner if you wish)

I agree with Loachman. I have only seen a wound stripe once and it was a lot more striking than the wearer's medals.


----------



## RHFC_piper

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Couldnt agree more.And it already has.there are a few questionable wearers kicking around...and ton's of people bitter that the person got anything for it.Breaking a leg oversea's does not indicate a would stripe/metal in most of our eyes...yet there is a one walking around..his officer musta been able to write beautiful poetry I guess.And here he is looking the same as a guy who took rounds during a TIC.
> 
> Wait for it.Man "Dive's" for cover in KAF and sprains ankle.Sacrifice metal.



It's a slippery slope on which we're dancing;  I (and 38 others) was eating breakfast and got hit by friendly fire, not a TIC, yet I wear a wound stripe... only qualifying as I was eating breakfast less than a kilometer from a Taliban strong point, during a major operation.   Point being; as much as I dislike the idea of what people are turning the sacrifice medal into, I can understand why it's becoming such an issue.  The current criteria aren't as cut and dry as they may seem, but the fact that they're "old" and firmly in place makes them seem more venerated.  Now that an opertunity has come to rewrite the criteria, I'm really not that surprised that so many new ones have been added... everyone wants equal representation.  
But, I do agree that the additional criteria are diminishing the 'award', but no more than the stigma attached to wearing a medal that basically indicates that you were either unlucky or incompetant; which is the common reflection on the Purple Heart. It seems like adding insult to injury, almost literally, moving what was once a mere stripe up to a large gong, which, whether optional or not, will be noticed when missing.  A stripe can disappear from a sleave more discreatly than a gong from a rack.
But I digress; if I don't accept it, my GCS might get lonely.



			
				ArmySailor said:
			
		

> I agree with Loachman. I have only seen a wound stripe once and it was a lot more striking than the wearer's medals.



Some of those wearing the wound stripe may on have one medal... 

But I agree; it does become much more striking... especially when you cannot be sure of how many times that one medal has been awarded.


----------



## X-mo-1979

Let's face it.The medal is turning into a joke.Many good buddies came home with that medal,and all for just reasons.there was one little turd who got written up when he broke his leg....as he was rushing to get back in his vehicle.Not from fire...but due to the geographical area and precieved threat.Not to mention their OC seemed to think they were war heros,and pumped it into their heads.We now have a large group of people who are convinced that their tour was the last and only tour in Astan...and that was about 2-3 years ago.A well decorated group of soldiers.

DEATH OR WOUNDS AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FRIENDLY FIRE AIMED AT A HOSTILE FORCE  OR WHAT IS OR WAS THOUGHT TO BE A HOSTILE FORCE

Thats the reason you got it.

Now how that can be misconstrued.(This is just for entertainment value)

Clerk smoking on those high up ISO stairs in KAF.Local national walks out with a mop on his shoulder and stops to look at the Clerk smoking (commenting on her sluttyness in his head as her hair blows in the wind).Clerk glances over and see LN with RPG on his shoulder and jumps off staircase.Breaks leg.

She thought it was a threat.
Sacrifice medal


----------



## PMedMoe

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> (commenting on her sluttyness in his head as her hair blows in the wind).



Tell us how you _really_ feel, why don't ya?   :


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Let's keep the discussion meaningful folks. Enough of the hypotheticals and hyperboyle.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Dean22

I would say that the bullet that hit him was fairly hostile, even if only to himself.

Why can't we class this differently and solve the issue?

Instead of classifying it by who your attacker was why don't we classify it by if the action was hostile.

Would someone get the medal if they were clearing friendly mines (of another military) and they died?

If military x sees the Canadian Forces and thinks they are Taliban and begins to engage them is that not a hostile force? They are shooting at you so I don't see it as very friendly .

(This reminds me of the accidental US bomb drops on Canadian soldiers we had a while ago. Did anyone check to see if they received the award?)

But, I would agree this discussion is very hard to do especially with the name of the medal.

The medal's name at the very least should be changed from sacrifice because I believe in my mind that any CF member overseas is making a sacrifice of their well being for the CF, their people and their country.


----------



## Steel Badger

Lane Warning!


----------



## kratz

I would prefer to retain the Wound Stripe IMO.

[off topic]
This discussion and some others brings up one comment that I have not seen. 10-15 years ago, it was uncommon to see a member with two rows of medals in their entire career. During that time, I often heard members complain how hard it was to earn recognition. Now there are operations and opportunities, some of the accepted rules are being changed. Is that so bad?[/end]

While I support the wound stripe, it does not mean I question the need for a medal.


----------



## HItorMiss

I have made my feelings very clear on this medal.

So when I am finally "Awarded" it and must take down my wound stripe I will not be putting it up. Seeing that it is an award and thus must be worn I will gladly accept continual jackings and or charges for being out of dress to protest this travesty and mockery.

I tried to refuse the award (and take down my stripe) as well but was ordered  to receive it so I am left with no other way to show my disgust.


----------



## forgotten

Looks like the Govt. has made its decision and its sticking to its guns to issue the medal from October 7, 2001 on and anyone prior to that date will NOT get issued the new medal..I do have my wound stripe and I am content with that..The kids that made the sacrifice in "GHAN" do deserve the medal time for us ol farts to move aside and not delay the issue of this medal.    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Department-Of-National-Defence-1061704.html   :yellow:


----------



## bick

First 46 to be awarded 9 Nov 09.

www.marketwire.com%2Fpress-release%2FGovernor-General-Of-Canada-1070926.html&h=1c821d05f20a0b5c469b1ee6f02f75f1


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Sorry for the necro post, but I am looking for some advice.

Since leaving the service, I've kept in touch with some former tour-mates, for obvious reasons, one of whom was blown up twice (ie <3m from a strike), suffered concussions and persistent symptoms of TBI for over 3 years after the strike. He was never awarded the SM, and although he has never said exactly 'why didn't I get it', it has come up in conversation, and I was wondering, if he wanted to pursue it, could he apply for it as a veteran having left the service? When I was in I never understood the process of application, was it the CO or MO who did the paperwork, all I know is this kid got blown off his feet, got back up and did his job, twice, and because nothing broke skin and he persuaded the medic to leave him on the ground (as we were short dudes already, 3 WIA, 1 KIA), he was never recognised, yet he has suffered far more than some who have this medal.


----------



## PuckChaser

As long as there are records of him being in the strike, he should be able to apply for it much like a member with an OSI can receive the SM years later when their symptoms persist.


----------



## 392

I believe that after leaving the CF, he can apply for it through VAC, but I am not 100% sure on that. I think, solely by your description, if he has not met the prereqs on the medical side for treatment, he won't be eligible. That being said, if he has been diagnosed with TBI that can be attributed to his tour, he might have an avenue to support it. 

The big thing is that he has to have had some type of sustained medical attention after the incident for symptoms presented IAW the prerequisites.

 :2c:

Edit: Let me check with a buddy who works at DH&R tomorrow.  I just checked VAC's website, and it only lists applying for WW and Korea medals. The GG's site doesn't list a whole lot. As noted below, there is an application he could use. The thing that kills me about this medal is that most soldiers are too proud to order it for fear of looking like bling hunters, yet in a lot of cases, units are not ordering them on their behalf either. IMHO, as one of the prereqs for living recipients of this medal is a certain level of med attention, the med side should be the ones ordering it to ensure all those who deserve it receive it and don't have to ask for it.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As long as there are records of him being in the strike, he should be able to apply for it much like a member with an OSI can receive the SM years later when their symptoms persist.



I like-wise wondered about another member from another regt, suffering a pretty lingering OSI from a different strike. Thanks for the help thus far!


----------



## PuckChaser

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I like-wise wondered about another member from another regt, suffering a pretty lingering OSI from a different strike. Thanks for the help thus far!



Good friend of mine was awarded a Sacrifice Medal for his OSI, one of the first in fact. Mental wounds definitely count, nearest VAC/JPSU would know more.


----------



## the 48th regulator

He can also use this application;

http://hqrcna.com/files/medal_app_initial_e.pdf

dileas

tess


----------



## wildman0101

Sorry to bump in ,,but I heard about a cold war medal. Doe's this have to do with 70's 80's.?
And if so where can I apply.  Thank's. Cheer's.coty B


----------



## mariomike

wildman0101 said:
			
		

> Sorry to bump in ,,but I heard about a cold war medal. Doe's this have to do with 70's 80's.?
> And if so where can I apply.  Thank's. Cheer's.coty B



NDP MP introduces bill to create "Defence of Canada Medal (1946-1989)"  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103502.0.html
"Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be able to reintroduce this bill for the establishment and award of a defence of Canada medal for the men and women who served in the defence of Canada during the cold war."


----------



## MikeL

*edit*

mariomike beat me to posting the link


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> I believe that after leaving the CF, he can apply for it through VAC, but I am not 100% sure on that. I think, solely by your description, if he has not met the prereqs on the medical side for treatment, he won't be eligible. That being said, if he has been diagnosed with TBI that can be attributed to his tour, he might have an avenue to support it.
> 
> The big thing is that he has to have had some type of sustained medical attention after the incident for symptoms presented IAW the prerequisites.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Edit: Let me check with a buddy who works at DH&R tomorrow.  I just checked VAC's website, and it only lists applying for WW and Korea medals. The GG's site doesn't list a whole lot. As noted below, there is an application he could use. The thing that kills me about this medal is that most soldiers are too proud to order it for fear of looking like bling hunters, yet in a lot of cases, units are not ordering them on their behalf either. IMHO, as one of the prereqs for living recipients of this medal is a certain level of med attention, the med side should be the ones ordering it to ensure all those who deserve it receive it and don't have to ask for it.




So.. sorry for the necropost but I thought I would update it and seek the opinion of the masses. 

Bumped into said former colleague a few weeks ago, and over a coffee asked 'hey did you ever send off for the SM like I said you should' he said he hummed and hawed about it for a while but finally did, sending in the application with details about how he has required sustained medical care ever since (psych's, MD's and neurologist trying to attenuate the symptoms).

He gets a letter back saying that since he didn't suffer a traumatic injury requiring immediate medevac and treatment, he was ineligible. In disgust he threw the letter away.

Thoughts? Appears that old '2 classes of wounded' syndrome still persists (visible and non-visible).


----------



## Tibbson

Even Frank Burns got a Purple Heart for a shell fragment in the eye.  Egg shell fragment mind you but it as a result of an air raid at breakfast. time.


----------



## mariomike

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Even Frank Burns got a Purple Heart for a shell fragment in the eye.  Egg shell fragment mind you but it as a result of an air raid at breakfast. time.



If I recall correctly, he got another for throwing his back out while dancing with Major Houlihan.


----------



## Tibbson

mariomike said:
			
		

> If I recall correctly, he got another for throwing his back out while dancing with Major Houlihan.



Yeah but who can blame him on that one?  lol


----------



## Towards_the_gap

I'm sorry, are you guys being facetious? A TBI is the same as eggshell in the eye in a comical, fictional TV show?


----------



## Tibbson

Of course not.  Nobody is making light of TBI, PTSD or any medical issue (seen or unseen).  My intention was to point out the absurdity of our overly stringent guidelines contrasted to the overly lax standard in the show.


----------



## Teager

TTG I find it odd your friend was denied.

Here is the criteria for the SM.



> ELIGIBILITY & CRITERIA
> 
> The Medal may be awarded to members of the Canadian Forces, members of an allied force working as an integral part of the Canadian Forces such as exchange personnel, civilian employees of the Government of Canada or Canadian citizens under contract with the Government of Canada, on the condition that they were deployed as part of a military mission under the authority of the Canadian Forces, that have, on or after October 7, 2001, died or been wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of hostile action on the condition that the wounds that were sustained required treatment by a physician and the treatment has been documented.
> 
> The Medal may also be awarded posthumously to any member of the Canadian Forces who served on or after 7 October 2001 in the Regular Force, Primary Reserve, Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service or Canadian Rangers, or any member of the Supplementary Reserve who served in or with one of the components aforementioned on or after 7 October 2001, and died under honourable circumstances as a result of an injury or disease related to military service.
> 
> When a death is obviously related to service, the SM will be issued immediately. When the cause of death is not clear, the SM will only be issued once Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) has officially determined that the death was related to military service, in such a case, delays are to be expected before the SM can be awarded.



http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/chart-tableau-eng.asp?ref=SM

And here is examples of elegiable cases forthe medal.



> Examples for the Sacrifice Medal - Eligible Cases
> 
> This list is not all inclusive and should only be used as a guide when considering eligibility.
> Last updated 27 January 2010
> 
> ELIGIBLE CASES
> 
> Died under honourable conditions on or after 7 October 2001:
> 
> as a direct result of hostile action;
> as a direct result of military service including:
> death during training or operations, following a vehicle accident, plane crash, shipwreck, parachute or diving accident, loss at sea, an accidental discharge of weapons, an ammunition handling accident, a fire or explosion, fatal fall, heart attack or as a result of a heat stroke, physical exhaustion or stress during mandated training;
> accidental death when travelling on duty;
> death as a result of mental disorders that are, based on the review by a qualified mental health care practitioner, directly attributable to military service.
> Wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of hostile action:
> 
> Enemy gunshot wound in action
> Improvised Explosive Device (IED) strike against a vehicle
> Explosion of a pressure-triggered anti-personnel mine
> Aircraft shot down or ship sunk or damaged by hostile fire
> Rocket attack inside the wire
> Explosion while removing or neutralizing land mines or bombs (due to mine or bomb disposal duty)
> Building collapse while attempting to rescue individuals trapped following an enemy air strike or terrorist attack (due to rescue duty)
> Vehicle-borne suicide attack against a convoy or ship
> Terrorist attack against an embassy or government building in Canada or elsewhere
> collision of an aircraft, vehicle or vessel, on the condition that the occurrence is directly related to a hostile action
> Wounded as a result of fire aimed at a hostile force or what is or was thought to be a hostile force (due to friendly fire):
> 
> Hit by bombs dropped by our own or allied forces planes
> Hit by misdirected naval missile, artillery or riffle fire by our own or allied forces
> Wounds that require not less than seven (7) days of treatment in hospital or equivalent treatment that were caused by:
> 
> Exposure to the elements as a result of aircraft, vehicle or vessel being destroyed or disabled by hostile action :
> Aircraft shot down by enemy anti-aircraft weapon, uninjured survivors hold out for several days in the desert and are subsequently hospitalized or die as a result of exposure (dehydration, sunburn, heatstroke)
> Exposure while at sea following sinking of a ship or destruction of a plane by enemy fire
> Harsh treatment or neglect while a captive of a hostile force
> Use of nuclear, biological or chemical agents by a hostile force
> Mental disorder diagnosed by qualified mental health practitioner and directly attributable to hostile action (a review of the medical file is necessary to confirm the link between the disorder and hostile action):
> 
> Operational Stress Injury (OSI) resulting from enemy action or suicide caused by such mental disorders related to hostile action



http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/smec-msce-eng.asp

And ineligible cases.



> Examples for the Sacrifice Medal - Ineligible Cases
> 
> This list is not all inclusive and should only be used as a guide when considering eligibility.
> Last updated 27 January 2010
> 
> INELIGIBLE CASES (non-qualifying)
> 
> Wounds due to accidents in theatre but not directly attributable to a hostile action:
> 
> Falling from a building or other structure
> Vehicle roll-over caused by road conditions while on patrol
> Wounds due to other circumstances and not caused by hostile action:
> 
> Vehicle accident, plane crash or shipwreck
> Vehicle accident while traveling to or from place of duty
> Natural occurrences such as lightning strikes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes (acts of God)
> Explosion in a well-marked mine field where the victim ventured to retrieve a war souvenir
> Negligent discharge of weapon
> Self-inflicted
> Death by suicide not related to a mental disorder caused by hostile action nor directly attributable to service.
> 
> Death of natural causes not directly related to service.



http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/smic-msci-eng.asp

To me he was treated by a physician has an injury. The criteria doesn't say it has to require immediate treatment and to be medevac.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Of course not.  Nobody is making light of TBI, PTSD or any medical issue (seen or unseen).  My intention was to point out the absurdity of our overly stringent guidelines contrasted to the overly lax standard in the show.



I did figure as much. Text doesn't convey tone very well. Apologies for any offense!


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Teager said:
			
		

> TTG I find it odd your friend was denied.
> 
> To me he was treated by a physician has an injury. The criteria doesn't say it has to require immediate treatment and to be medevac.



I guess to some mandarin in DHH that criteria is open to quite liberal interpretation.


----------



## Teager

I'm wondering if there was wording that made them think something else. I assume your friend suffered a TBI due to a blast. If that's the case then it should be straight forward. He suffered an injury (TBI) as a direct result from hostile action. I don't see how that can be rejected but apparently someone was able to reject it.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

I don't know what process they go through in Ottawa to confirm such things. He had a number of CF98's with 'injuries were a result of hostile action in a Special Duty Area' and witness statements declaring 'Spr XX was xx ft from the blast seat as the IED went off'.

As far as I know there were now blue on blue IED incidents so they really don't have a leg to stand on regarding wording, but alas. I will see if he wants to reapply and if so, have him FOI all his med docs and send copies of everything TBI related along with his application.


----------



## captloadie

From anyone that has either submitted, or reviewed a submission, I could use some assistance. Several submissions have arrived on my desk for review and furtherance where the member has suffered from PTSD attributable to incidents in Afghanistan. The details are very generic and don't give specific details. I want to ensure that if these files go forward, there can be no refuting the entitlement. Is the Dr's signoff enough?


----------

