# Controversial vehicle - upsets residents



## kratz (18 Jun 2019)

ref: CBC.ca

This is what happens when we are reduced to being seen in our community at their pleasure / comfort.



> Controversial armoured vehicle to be set up in Sackville Memorial Park, upsets residents
> While residents agree veterans deserve to be commemorated, some worry the armoured vehicle glorifies war
> 
> A Sackville group is opposing the installation of a second armoured fighting vehicle in the town's memorial park.
> ...


----------



## mariomike (18 Jun 2019)

We had a Lancaster bomber on display for 33 years in Coronation Park at the waterfront, near the CNE.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jun 2019)

Those people really are something else.


----------



## FSTO (18 Jun 2019)

There is a Firefly tank parked by the town hall in Minnedosa MB for god knows how long. AFAIK there has never been a case of someone getting hurt playing on the damn thing.

I'm more and more convinced that we need a meteor to sort this planet out. We are long past due for one.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jun 2019)

Is there a Liberal arts program in or around Sackville?


----------



## Lumber (18 Jun 2019)

This really surprised me considering that, by and large, Halifax (and surrounding communities) are extremely supportive of the CAF.


----------



## kratz (18 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> This really surprised me considering that, by and large, Halifax (and surrounding communities) are extremely supportive of the CAF.



Read the article ... Sackville NB.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (18 Jun 2019)

The types of (assumingly, ill-informed) people who are offended are probably the same types of (assumingly, ill-informed) people who support things like the white poppy movement.  :


----------



## mariomike (18 Jun 2019)

I guess they are worried kids might fall off it,



> Sackville’s obligations
> 
> “What we would request from Sackville is a concrete pad,” he said, “so the vehicle doesn’t sink down into the mud.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is there a Liberal arts program in or around Sackville?



Looks like it lol



> A liberal arts and sciences education from Mount Allison will teach you important skills that can help you thrive, both personally and professionally, in today's ever-changing world.



I wonder if being offended by imperialist displays of anything military related is a course they offer in that degree.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jun 2019)

We used to politely tell people like this to STFU. Now we elect them.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jun 2019)

kratz said:
			
		

> ref: CBC.ca
> 
> This is what happens when we are reduced to being seen in our community at their pleasure / comfort.



It seems that the city council failed 'Public Consultation 101'  :nod:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 Jun 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It seems that the city council failed 'Public Consultation 101'  :nod:



There wasn't a lot of time taken to consider the issue by this particular city council.  With the offer being made at the meeting on 4 Feb 2019 they decided to consider it at their next meeting one week later. (The Sackville council only meets twice a month, the first and second Monday of each month)


https://sackville.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/03-Minutes-Special-Meeting-of-Council-February-4-2019.pdf


> Public Special Meeting of Council, Public Reports and Staff Reports – 7:00 p.m.
> 1. Presentation – 8th Canadian Hussars
> Jim Lockyer, Honorary Colonel 8th Canadian Hussars spoke of the close association with the Town of Sackville and that the Regimental Band of the 8th Canadian Hussars was based in Sackville. The Regiment has procured a retired AFV known as a Cougar AVGP and would like to offer it to the Town as a monument to the members of the Regiment who served and were from the Sackville area. Members of Council were very appreciative of the offer. A motion will be presented at the February 11, 2019 Regular Council Meeting for Council to consider the acceptance of this donation.



And some public consultation was proposed at the city council meeting but the motion was defeated.

https://sackville.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Council-Meeting-Minutes-for-February-11-2019.pdf


> #19-017 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR BILL EVANS AND SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR JOYCE O’NEIL COUNCIL ACCEPT THE GIFT FROM THE 8TH CANADIAN HUSSARS OF A RETIRED ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLE KNOWN AS A COUGAR, WITH THE TOWN PROVIDING THE NECESSARY CONCRETE PAD TO ACCOMMODATE ITS INSTALLATION IN MEMORIAL PARK AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO SIGN AND SEAL A LIABILITY AGREEMENT…..
> 
> Following a brief discussion, #19-018 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SHAWN MESHEAU AND SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR BRUCE PHINNEY THAT COUNCIL POSTPONE THE MOTION REGARDING THE GIFT FROM THE 8TH CANADIAN HUSSARS, UNTIL MARCH TO OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION. AYE VOTES WERE RECORDED FROM COUNCILLOR SHAWN MESHEAU AND COUNCILLOR BRUCE PHINNEY. NAY VOTES WERE RECORDED FROM COUNCILLOR ALLISON BUTCHER, COUNCILLOR ANDREW BLACK, COUNCILLOR JOYCE O’NEIL AND COUNCILLOR BILL EVANS. MOTION DEFEATED.
> 
> Council then returned to the original Motion; #19-019 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR BILL EVANS AND SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR JOYCE O’NEIL COUNCIL ACCEPT THE GIFT FROM THE 8TH CANADIAN HUSSARS OF A RETIRED ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLE KNOWN AS A COUGAR, WITH THE TOWN PROVIDING THE NECESSARY CONCRETE PAD TO ACCOMMODATE ITS INSTALLATION IN MEMORIAL PARK AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO SIGN AND SEAL A LIABILITY AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED.



The entire process took less than ten minutes https://youtu.be/ciGCVMh_I-w?t=1859 (from 31:00 to 40:10) and actually included brief comment from one councillor that suggested some citizens may have objections and with another councillor reminding the body that there were such public objections when the scout car was put into the park.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jun 2019)

Hi: we would welcome the aforementioned vehicle, and any other similar vehicles, aircraft and related display items, in Armstrong, British  Columbia, CANADA. (the last word being spelled exactly the same as the shoulder flash worn by the people who served this country so that others apparently have the right to act like snowflakes).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jun 2019)

Taxpayers, users and citizens that use the park have a right to voice their opinion on what they want in local parks and city property. We haven't gone completely communist in this country yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to bring back dueling.😏


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jun 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And some public consultation was proposed at the city council meeting but the motion was defeated.



a.k.a. 'they blew it'  :nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jun 2019)

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

What I find comical is the girl speaking on behalf of refugees and soldiers with PTSD, and, the doctor worrying that kids might fall off it. Won't anyone think of the children?  ;D


----------



## mariomike (19 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> , and, the doctor worrying that kids might fall off it.



Maybe that's why the donors are insisting the town, "sign an agreement exempting the Department of National Defence from liability for any injuries associated with the display."


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Jun 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

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



I agree with your statement as a whole; but I feel the need to point out that we do not have "Free Speech" in this country.  We have freedom of expression.  Pedantic, it could be argued.  But we need to learn to distance ourselves and our rights from those of our southern neighbors. 

It could be argued that we, in fact, have nothing like free speech.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 Jun 2019)

Some additional background to add to the discussion.

The presentation made to the Sackville Town Council by HCol Lockyer.
https://sackville.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Combined-Presentations.pdf

While the CBC link in the OP indicated that the outraged residents said they "were surprised" that the vehicle was coming to their neighbourhood and only became aware when they saw the construction of the concrete pad, there was some local media coverage of the offer to and acceptance by the town council back in February.  However, I can't speak to the readership of those sites and whether the issue was publicized so that residents would have seen the story beforehand.  Personally, since I no longer regularly read a "news*paper*", I feel I sometimes have less awareness of events that may have happened across the street compared (such as in this story) to a relatively unimportant issue on the other side of the country.

https://warktimes.com/2019/02/08/canadian-regiment-seeks-to-donate-armoured-military-vehicle-to-sackville-memorial-park/

https://www.sackvilletribunepost.com/news/local/8th-canadian-hussars-donates-retired-armoured-military-vehicle-to-sackville-284725/

I may be reading too much into it, but there may be an ulterior motive to why the 8CH wanted Sackville as the location for the vehicle.



> Lockyer said the regiment’s commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Peppard, would like to re-establish the relationship with Sackville with the gift of a Cougar.
> 
> “We would be delighted if we could open up a C Squardon once again in Sackville. We would be absolutely ecstatic if we could do that,” he said, adding however, that the only thing that would prevent it would be the need to find a location to replace the old armoury.



So, I'm skeptical that the primary motive is to establish a memorial to their regiment.  If it was, then wouldn't the cenotaph listing the names of the town's fallen and the "Memorial Park" (placed there in 1922 and updated for later wars) accomplish this already as well as the Ferret that was placed there in 1994 by the 8CH as a momento to their regiment.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Jun 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Taxpayers, users and citizens that use the park have a right to voice their opinion on what they want in local parks and city property. We haven't gone completely communist in this country yet.
> 
> That's why we have elections and the right to vote and express our opinions, without fear of reprisal. Or seemingly, used to.
> 
> ...



Well said


----------



## Scott (19 Jun 2019)

Jesus.

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

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

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

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


----------



## mariomike (19 Jun 2019)

N.B. town suspends plan for military memorial
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/honouring-soldiers-or-violence-n-b-town-suspends-plan-for-military-memorial-1.4473724


----------



## BeyondTheNow (19 Jun 2019)

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

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

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



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



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

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


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jun 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2019)

Alex Thomas would be less fearful of this "modern symbol of military violence" if he'd had opportunity to witness them get "stuck" on wet grass on an advance thru the Lawfield.

 8)

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


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Alex Thomas would be less fearful of this "modern symbol of military violence" if he'd had opportunity to witness them get "stuck" on wet grass on an advance thru the Lawfield.
> 
> 8)
> 
> Remove the Ferret to somewhere it will be appreciated.  Let the Channel 8s decide if they are going to continue to show up on Nov 11th.



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


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't seem to recall Alex Thomas protesting the troops driving around earlier this year with the SJ River was spilling over, nope!
> 
> There is this though...https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/army-flood-love-persists-1.5109428



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

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

Big difference 



(edited for humour fail)


----------



## BeyondTheNow (20 Jun 2019)

Maybe the nay-sayers will go for one of these. ;D



> https://www.popsci.com/arquus-scarabee-french-military-vehicle/


----------



## Scott (20 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

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



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

I digress.

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


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Those LAVs driving around town in your link only have small 25mm canons and are just "light" armored vehicles.
> 
> On the other hand, "The Cougar is a modern vehicle that represents military violence" and *has a giant 76mm canon*.



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


----------



## gcclarke (20 Jun 2019)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## FJAG (20 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Someone who considers displaying an armoured vehicle in a park to be glorifying war is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. Honestly, I think it's probably one I agree with; the question is just whether or not said glorification is viewed as a good thing or a bad thing.
> 
> This isn't like a Remembrance Day ceremony or anything of the like where there's the rest of the stuff going on to contextualize it, and focus upon the horrors of war. It's a cool piece of kit in a park. That's what people will see when they head to the park. Sticking a few plaques on an armoured vehicle doesn't actually magically turn it into a proper war memorial IMHO.



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

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

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

 :cheers:


----------



## Rick Goebel (20 Jun 2019)

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


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jun 2019)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

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



The Boats deployed to Somalia too.


----------



## mariomike (20 Jun 2019)

Seems like the people of Sussex are getting all sorts of advice from coast to coast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit spelling.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Someone who considers displaying an armoured vehicle in a park to be glorifying war is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. Honestly, I think it's probably one I agree with;



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

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

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


----------



## mariomike (20 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## gcclarke (21 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Would you say there is a difference between displaying an armored vehicle "in a park" and displaying an armored vehicle in a _* memorial*_ park, along side other memorial displays.
> 
> Ferret armored car, anchor, picture of the hmcs Sackville, propeller from an rcaf plane, stone obelisk.
> 
> https://mynewbrunswick.ca/sackville-memorial-park/



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

	
	
		
		

		
			





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

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

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


----------



## chrisf (22 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Honestly, no. I would not say there is a difference. A memorial needs to look like it's a memorial, not a vehicle.



Does it though? Couldn't either be effective? Or both be effective?

I took my (young) kids for a stroll in a park a few weeks ago.

In that park, there's a rather large howitzer, and we decided it was a good place to sit down, eat ice cream and pick dandelions.

While were there, they asked what it (the howitzer) was.

I did my best to explain in terms a preschooler could understand, and more importantly, got to tell him about a few of their great-great-uncles,who had fought through europe with said howitzer.

Had it been some other sort of "memorial", the kids probably wouldn't have been curious, we wouldn't have sat down to eat ice cream, and we wouldn't have had that conversation.

Having that tangible connection to the past though made for a very effective memorial.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Jun 2019)

Just a small nuance to gcclarke's last post: It is cenotaphs we are to salute, not "memorials". There is a difference. You can have cenotaphs with or without memorials made of vehicles around them - but only salute the cenotaphs.

I used to have to do that, as an illustration, whenever I crossed the Place du Canada park in Montreal on my way to and from the bus depot: You have a cenotaph, and on either sides, a 40-pounder from WWII and a gun mount and gun from the Boer war. You salute the cenotaph, not the guns, and without the cenotaph's presence, you wouldn't salute at all.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jun 2019)

[quote author=gcclarke]
Honestly, no. I would not say there is a difference. A memorial needs to look like it's a memorial, not a vehicle. It needs to be clear at first (or at least second) glance that the purpose of the object is to commemorate the dead. Parts of vehicles or vehicles themselves can be incorporated into memorials, sure. Props, anchors, etc. Or, say, depictions of vehicles. Something like a statue depicting the burnt out husk of a tank could do the trick. Or this unique memorial in Lebanon. 
But just the vehicles themselves, even if with a few plaques, or in a park with other memorials? No, I don't think that's effectively serving the purpose.[/quote]

Fair enough. But you posted a picture of a monument [Hope for Peace Monument  made to celebrate the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1990] Not a memorial.

Maybe it's semantics.


> Monument
> A monument is a type of - usually three-dimensional - structure that was explicitly created to commemorate a person or event, or which has become relevant to a social group as a part of their remembrance of historic times or cultural heritage, due to its artistic, historical, political, technical or architectural importance. Examples of monuments include statues, (war) memorials, historical buildings, archeological sites, and cultural assets. If there is a public interest in its preservation, a monument can for example be listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
> 
> Memorial
> A memorial is an object which serves as a focus for memory of something, usually a person (who has died) or an event. Popular forms of memorials include landmark objects or art objects such as sculptures, statues or fountains, *and even entire parks.*



The whole park is a memorial because it's literally designated a memorial park. It serves as a focus to remember the members of town who died in various conflicts. 

When you look at the items placed in the park it's very hard to not recognize that it's a memorial park. The cougar is a more modern addition which can be said to easily reflect a memorial to our generation including those passing away in training during the cold war and on peacekeeping operations.


I think Scott nailed it perfectly. The majority of people don't have a problem with it. It's a select few in town who are bothered by it. Of course the media thrives on outrage so they'll pick up on their complaints.

I have a feeling the same people opposed to the vehicle going up in town are of the same mindset of the people wanting to tear down various statues- and I think that has to do with the Liberal arts programs proximity.




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


Memorial parks are a thing though. You can tell you're approaching it because there's a sign that will say "memorial park". I'm not sure if that means you should salute every plaque, just salute the sign or walk around in the salute position.



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


I think Not a Sig Op brings up a great point. Plaques and little write ups are easy to walk past and miss or not really interest kids or young adults.
Full size decommissioned vehicles are a tangible, very clear reminders of what our service members have employed at home and abroad in order to give the people walking around the park the freedoms they're enjoying.


My last take on the issue is that if decommissioned armored vehicles upset people (in a memorial park) they should try getting blown up in one and see how that feels. Everyone in Canada loves their freedoms- not everyone is willing to pay for them though. Hopefully the town decides to put it up. 

And then add a LAV, Seaking and something else Navy-ish  ;D


----------



## mariomike (22 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> And then add a LAV, Seaking and something else Navy-ish  ;D



And one of these. Complete with water tank trailer. Their Parks Dept. can keep it re-filled with cold, fresh drinking water for when their kids get de-hydrated from playing on these long, hot summer days.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jun 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> And one of these. Complete with water tank trailer. Their Parks Dept. can keep it re-filled with cold, fresh drinking water for when their kids get de-hydrated from playing on these long, hot summer days.



To heck with that... I want one of those for my unit to use on exercise!


----------



## Eaglelord17 (23 Jun 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I agree with your statement as a whole; but I feel the need to point out that we do not have "Free Speech" in this country.  We have freedom of expression.  Pedantic, it could be argued.  But we need to learn to distance ourselves and our rights from those of our southern neighbors.
> 
> It could be argued that we, in fact, have nothing like free speech.



Your right we have "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"

Which I would argue is much more absolute as it covers not only speech, but other forms and modes of communications such as writings, art, internet, tv, radio, etc.


----------



## mariomike (8 Jul 2019)

July 2, 2019 



> Hussars opt to rescind gift of armoured military vehicle to Sackville, N.B.
> https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/mobile/hussars-opt-to-rescind-gift-of-armoured-military-vehicle-to-sackville-n-b-1.4491662?cache=yes?clipId=104062
> In a letter addressed to the town of Sackville, the 8th Canadian Hussars decided to withdraw their donation of an armoured vehicle.


----------



## AbdullahD (8 Jul 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> July 2, 2019



That's a damned shame and a loss for the city.

Abdullah


----------



## mariomike (9 Jul 2019)

For reference to the discussion,



> Mohawk Grand Chief speaks out against installing Cougar in Sackville’s Memorial Park
> https://warktimes.com/2019/07/05/mohawk-grand-chief-speaks-out-against-installing-cougar-in-sackvilles-memorial-park/
> The Grand Chief of the Mohawk First Nation at Kanesatake, Quebec is urging the 8th Canadian Hussars to stand by its decision to withdraw the gift of a Cougar armoured personnel carrier for display in Sackville’s Memorial Park.


----------



## FJAG (9 Jul 2019)

:brickwall:


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2019)

Lets not forget "cougar" is a derogatory term for older women. The name of this vehicle is problematic and misogynistic and has no place in a memorial park.


----------



## mariomike (9 Jul 2019)

See also,
https://www.sackvilletribunepost.com/news/local/reactions-mixed-over-cougar-controversy-329715/



> SACKVILLE, N.B. —  Scott Timpa is no stranger to military vehicles. Having served over a decade in the Canadian Army, Timpa said he spent five years in the back of a Light Armoured Vehicle Three (LAV 3) during his years as an infantry soldier.
> 
> And while these types of armoured vehicles incite mixed feelings for Timpa, a medically-retired, disabled veteran, most of those emotions are not good ones.
> 
> ...





> The size of the Cougar was also a factor for those opposing its placement in Memorial Park, with many saying that the “massive machine” would dwarf the other monuments and minimize the Cenotaph’s central role in the park.





			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Lets not forget "cougar" is a derogatory term for older women.



Not necessarily derogatory. Sometimes, complimentary,  
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cougar


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2019)

> Ever since the decision was made to withdraw the donation, a petition has surfaced online with the signatures of * more than 1,000 people hoping that the armoured vehicle will be reconsidered.*





> SACKVILLE Population
> (2016)
> • Total5,331


----------



## mariomike (9 Jul 2019)

The story has been reported across Canada. Anyone on the internet can sign the petition,
https://www.change.org/p/residents-of-the-town-of-sackville-bring-the-cougar-to-sackville

It's up to their municipal taxpayers to decide. 

"sign an agreement exempting the Department of National Defence from liability for any injuries associated with the display."

That's what caught my eye.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2019)

Oops lol
Good catch thanks!


----------

