# Memorial Cross



## geo (6 Mar 2008)

> I wonder if the medal of sacrifice will extend to the families of those KIA? Perhaps something like that may be a very special posthumous recognition for the families? Just a thought.


Horseman,  
the families of the fallen are entitled to and receive up to 3 of what used to be the "Mother's" silver cross.  These medals are quite special and there is no reason to go any further.  HOWEVER, if we ever do go down the same route our American friends have gone (purple heart) then our fallen should be entitled to one of those as well.


----------



## medaid (6 Mar 2008)

Geo,

   They're called Memorial Crosses now.


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2008)

yeah... just won't do to have a Dad, a husband or a brother wearing a "mother's" cross


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> yeah... just won't do to have a Dad, a husband or a brother wearing a "mother's" cross



Really?? When exactly was it called the "Mother's Cross" anyway -- I'm pretty sure it was previously known as the "Silver Cross" ... and the lady who layeth the wreath at the foot of the National War Memorial is herself referred to as the "Silver Cross Mother," but never has "mother" been an official part of the name of the Cross itself.


----------



## Scoobs (7 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern is correct.  It used to be called the Silver Cross.  It is now called the Memorial Cross.  In addition, it is mandatory for everyone in the military to designate recipients, as per a CANFORGEN that I cannot remember at this time.  If there is nobody listed or a form is not completed, then no Memorial Cross will be given.  Also, you do not have to be in theatre for your next of kin or whomever you list to receive the Memorial Cross.  Do a google search for the Memorial Cross and you will most likely come to the Governor General's website and you will receive the fine details.


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Mar 2008)

It has always been the Memorial Cross (although more often referred to as the Silver Cross) and 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. 

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group09

For deaths that occur before 1 January 2007.
The Memorial Cross is granted to the mother (if living) and/or the widow (if legally married or common law) of a CF member that either:

- dies in a Special Duty Area (SDA); 
- dies while proceeding to or returning from a SDA; or 
- dies from causes directly attributable to service in a SDA.


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2008)

might be so Vern.... but for the 1st 30 + years of service, I'VE always related their use & wear as being something "mother's" got  ... though plenty of wives have received em too.

I will shut up now  :-X


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Mar 2008)

The National Silver Cross Mother is chosen annually by The Royal Canadian Legion to represent the mothers of Canada at the National Remembrance Day Ceremony in Ottawa on 11 November. As the Silver Cross Mother, she will lay a wreath at the base of the National War Memorial on behalf of all mothers who lost children in the military service of their nation.  
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/books/silver


----------



## Scoobs (7 Mar 2008)

Frostnipped Elf,

I stand corrected in regards to the official name.  As your reference clearly states, it was more commonly referred to as the Silver Cross For Mothers.  However, the name Memorial Cross has always been the official name.  Memorial Cross is the name that is both officially and commonly used now.
The rules in force now, i.e. after December 31, 2006, are that up to three persons can be designated to receive the Memorial Cross.  I think the most important thing that everybody elect three persons.  The completion of the form is actually now part of the DAG process and I'm glad that it is.  Unfortunately, the use of the form has happened many too times since.
Make sure you complete one and tell your friends to ensure that theirs is.  Although this is now mandatory as per CANFORGENs, it never hurts to check.


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Mar 2008)

You don't "have" to designate anyone.  It is your choice.  However, having said that there have already been cases where a soldier has died without designating a recipient and regardless of if this was done on purpose by the member, DND has gone to the government to get a special Order in Council so that the Memorial Crosses could be presented.


----------



## Scoobs (7 Mar 2008)

Note para 4 that states, "must designate".


CANFORGEN 182/06 CMP 090 051457Z DEC 06
MEMORIAL CROSS
UNCLASSIFIED
REF. A. PC 2006-1449 OF 30 NOV 06 
B. PC 5812 OF 5 DEC 50 (CFAO 18-19) 

1.	REF A IS A NEW ORDER IN COUNCIL (OIC) GOVERNING THE GRANTING OF THE MEMORIAL CROSS. THE MEMORIAL CROSS WAS CREATED IN 1919 AND HAS BEEN GRANTED SINCE THEN AS A MEMENTO OF PERSONAL LOSS AND SACRIFICE ON THE PART OF THE MOTHERS AND WIDOWS OF MIL PERS KILLED IN OR ON THEIR WAY TO AND FROM A SPECIAL DUTY AREA (SDA), OR WHO DIED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR SVC IN AN SDA. THE LAST MAJOR REVIEW OF THE MEMORIAL CROSS WAS CONDUCTED IN 1950. SINCE THAT TIME, CDN SOCIETY HAS EVOLVED, THE MAKE-UP OF THE MODERN FAMILY HAS CHANGED AND SO HAS THE CF. THE NEW OIC UPDATES THE CRITERIA FOR THE GRANTING OF THE MEMORIAL CROSS 

2.	THE NEW OIC APPLIES TO ALL CF MBRS WHO SERVE IN THE REG F, PRIMARY RES, CIC OR CDN RANGERS AFTER 31 DEC 06. THE 1950 OIC AT REF B WILL NO LONGER APPLY TO THESE MBRS 

3.	BEGINNING 1 JAN 07, THE MEMORIAL CROSS WILL BE GRANTED UNDER THE NEW OIC AS A MEMENTO OF PERSONAL LOSS AND SACRIFICE IN RESPECT OF THE DEATH OF A MBR OR FORMER MBR RESULTING FROM AN INJURY OR DIESEASE RELATED TO MIL SVC, REGARDLESS OF LOCATION 

4.	THE MEMORIAL CROSS WILL BE GRANTED TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE MBR OR FORMER MBR. ALL CF MBRS AND FORMER MBRS TO WHOM THE NEW OIC APPLIES MUST DESIGNATE THEIR CHOSEN RECIPIENTS BY COMPLETING AND SIGNING THE FORM ENTITLED QUOTE DESIGNATION OF MEMORIAL CROSS RECIPIENTS UNQUOTE (DND 2105) AVAL AT HTTP://IMGAPP.MIL.CA/DFC2. RECIPIENTS DO NOT HAVE TO BE FAMILY MBRS, BUT MUST BE A LIVING INDIVIDUAL. UNITS ARE TO ENSURE ALL CURRENTLY SERVING CF MBRS COMPLETE THE FORM BEFORE 1 JAN 07. THE COMPLETED FORM IS TO BE PLACED ON THE MBR S PERS FILE. IF NO DESIGNATION IS MADE, NO MEMORIAL CROSS WILL BE ISSUED. MBRS AND FORMER MBRS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR UPDATING THESE FORMS AS THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE 

5.	DND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUING THE MEMORIAL CROSS FOR CF MBRS, VETERAN'S AFFAIRS CANADA (VAC) IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FORMER MBRS. FOR CASES INVOLVING DEATH IN AN SDA OR A TRG ACCIDENT, WHEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH IS CLEARLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MIL SVC, THE MEMORIAL CROSS WILL BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY. IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE MEMORIAL CROSS WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL IT IS DETERMINED THAT DEATH WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO MIL SVC 

6.	BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A FORMER MBR S DEATH TO BE ATTIBUTED TO HIS OR HER MIL SVC, CF MBRS WHO RELEASE FROM THE REG F, PRIMARY RES, CIC OR CDN RANGERS, OR TRANSFER TO THE SUPP RES, AFTER 31 DEC 06 ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THEIR DESIGNATION FORM UPDATED. ADDITIONAL INFO IS AVAL FROM VETERANS AFFAIRS CANADA, HONOURS AND AWARDS SECTION, 66 SLATER STREET, OTTAWA, ON K1A OP4, PHONE AT 1-877-995-5003 

7.	THE DESIGN AND METHOD OF PRESENTATION OF THE MEMORIAL CROSS WILL NOT CHANGE 

8.	THE 1950 OIC WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY TO MBRS WHO DIE,RELEASE FROM THE CF OR TRANSFER TO SUPP RES ON OR BEFORE 31 DEC 06


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Mar 2008)

Read para 4 of your post:

"IF NO DESIGNATION IS MADE, NO MEMORIAL CROSS WILL BE ISSUED."  as well, http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2006/20061213/html/si141-e.html


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Read para 4 of your post:
> 
> "IF NO DESIGNATION IS MADE, NO MEMORIAL CROSS WILL BE ISSUED."



In my current Unit, this form is reviewed annually as part of the DAG. Members MUST fill it out as per para 4, but do not have to list any recipients if they prefer not to designate anyone (and ergo -- no Cross would be issued) ... but the form (ie their particulars with a "no-designees") must be filled out and signed by them, and is retained on their file as per the directives.


----------



## dangerboy (7 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> In my current Unit, this form is reviewed annually as part of the DAG. Members MUST fill it out as per para 4, but do not have to list any recipients if they prefer not to designate anyone (and ergo -- no Cross would be issued) ... but the form (ie their particulars with a "no-designees") must be filled out and signed by them, and is retained on their file as per the directives.


In 2 PPCLI we do the same and if the pers has no recipients then the OC interviews him to make sure they are 100% clear on what that means.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> In 2 PPCLI we do the same and if the pers has no recipients then the OC interviews him to make sure they are 100% clear on what that means.



Seems the sensible thing to do.

CANFORGEN is therefore complied with. Member then has the choice to designate or not (but the form itself signifies that the MEMBER has been given opportunity to make that choice), and the member is fully aware of the reprecussions of a choice to "not designate".

Common sense.


----------



## horseman (7 Mar 2008)

At the time, the suggestion was that the 'Medal of Sacrifice' (I have to tell you that there was almost instant resistance to that name) would be in addition to the Silver Cross. Honor given to the fallen member (as opposed to his family) but posthumously to his/her family. Of course, all of that may have changed in a year. 

If you really want a chuckle, I don't know what the current design of the combat badge you guys will wear on your uniform, but the original design on bronze, silver and gold were dragons facing inward, facing outward, etc. Quel horreur! I don't need to tell you how much resistance there was to the 'Dungeons and Dragons' proposal when it was floated over there! Hopefully they came up with something a bit more professional looking for you guys. The only thing I would say about the whole idea is it is nice to see the truckers and folks doing convoy work getting something - whenever I was going in one or watching from the safety of my workplace I couldn't help but admire them for the daily risks they took. There were guys who had been hit multiple times and had LAV's blown out from under them. Seems like the least anybody could do is recognize them for it.

Yet another perspective on the whole medals, badges thing - the nature of my work meant that I worked a lot with the Brits in both Kandahar and Helmand Province. Don't kid yourself about the Pommies (and the Aussies too) - they were always saying that, from their perspective, that the Canadians were "getting it right" on recognition and that the UK and Aussies could learn a thing or two from us as we were striking a balance between the Yanks and the Brits.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Mar 2008)

I remember when I was a young Militia soldier, at Nov 11 ceremonies, they still had Silver Cross Mothers laying wreaths at the Cross of Rememberance in Regina's Victoria Park. That was 1976. They were old and frail then, now a new generation of Moms has emerged from this new war.

Then, in the RRR, there were still serving WW2 and Korea Vets.

Peace is perishable, and each generation has to fight for it.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Starlight31 (7 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I remember when I was a young Militia soldier, at Nov 11 ceremonies, they still had Silver Cross Mothers laying wreaths at the Cross of Rememberance in Regina's Victoria Park. That was 1976. They were old and frail then, now a new generation of Moms has emerged from this new war



And like you just said, we use to watch on T.V. and not really understand what it really meant. Hell, 5 yrs ago, I really didn't even know what it meant (Though I knew the Guys from 3 PPCLI).  But now that we have fought, and held our brothers/sisters as they have fallen.  Then to come home to see and meet their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc.... Now brings a whole new meaning.  As I think, the true untold hero of any war, is the family left behind, fighting the biggest enemy!! The unknown.  Plus holding everything together "Keeping the home fires burning".


----------



## Infanteer (9 Mar 2008)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> In 2 PPCLI we do the same and if the pers has no recipients then the OC interviews him to make sure they are 100% clear on what that means.



Commander LFWA had all units in the Area do it.  I got the memo (and the tasking) for my company.

It's good to keep current on these things, especially when ex-wives or ex-girlfriends are still listed and the member is killed on operations, which can create an ugly scenario for the CF.


----------



## BinRat55 (13 Mar 2008)

After filling out the designate form and leaving it blank I was called 3 times and "reminded" that I had no choice but to put 3 recipients on the sheet of paper.  I kept reminding (first the Cpl, then the MCpl then the WO) them that I do have choices. The Adm O then had me stood to in his office explaining the whole "we die for our family" crap.  I told him that I would prefer to be charged than be forced to put a name down.  The charges were actually researched... more to follow!!

In other words, it's my choice.  I fully understand the ramifications of my actions, but they are MY actions.

Nuff said.


----------



## medaid (13 Mar 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> After filling out the designate form and leaving it blank I was called 3 times and "reminded" that I had no choice but to put 3 recipients on the sheet of paper.  I kept reminding (first the Cpl, then the MCpl then the WO) them that I do have choices. The Adm O then had me stood to in his office explaining the whole "we die for our family" crap.  I told him that I would prefer to be charged than be forced to put a name down.  The charges were actually researched... more to follow!!
> 
> In other words, it's my choice.  I fully understand the ramifications of my actions, but they are MY actions.
> 
> Nuff said.



Wow... I can't believe that. Actually... I can. The stupidity of it all, the time and man hours wasted to do what? Infringe on a soldier's personal choice whether or not he or she would like to put down names or not on the form? Unbelievable...


----------



## geo (13 Mar 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> After filling out the designate form and leaving it blank I was called 3 times and "reminded" that I had no choice but to put 3 recipients on the sheet of paper.  I kept reminding (first the Cpl, then the MCpl then the WO) them that I do have choices. The Adm O then had me stood to in his office explaining the whole "we die for our family" crap.  I told him that I would prefer to be charged than be forced to put a name down.  The charges were actually researched... more to follow!!
> 
> In other words, it's my choice.  I fully understand the ramifications of my actions, but they are MY actions.
> 
> Nuff said.



Binrat, if that is your position; you should have drawn a line across the 3 lines and clearly indicated that "none" was your choice...that way it would be unequivocaly clear to all that you had no one in mind that should receive the cross, in the event your lights were turned off for you.


----------



## Strike (13 Mar 2008)

CSA, it's not really for us to question someone's actions for something as serious as this.  We don't know Binrat's family history.  It could be anything from a serious family conflict to not having any family at all.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (13 Mar 2008)

I don't really know a whole lot on the memorial cross. However If your child died in the forces (God forbid) and you were still serving,do you wear that medal?Are you forced to?

Man that would be tough.


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Binrat, if that is your position; you should have drawn a line across the 3 lines and clearly indicated that "none" was your choice...that way it would be unequivocaly clear to all that you had no one in mind that should receive the cross, in the event your lights were turned off for you.



This, I think is the thing that was not done in all those other cases CSA105 spoke of, and if it were duly noted on the form I do not think the government would have the ability to go to the GG and proceeded with a special order in council.

I'm not saying that this would not end up creating a soup sandwich for the members Unit and Family, but legally the bases aught to be covered.


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I don't really know a whole lot on the memorial cross. However If your child died in the forces (God forbid) and you were still serving,do you wear that medal?Are you forced to?
> 
> Man that would be tough.



I would be proud to wear it, for the memory of my child's sacrifice.

dileas

tess


----------



## Strike (13 Mar 2008)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> I see a world of difference between someone with a legitimate concern and someone who wants to flex their "rights of the individual" muscles.  Perception is reality and this post screams "Barrack Room Lawyer" and not "Unique Personal Circumstances".



True, but we all know how posts can be misinterpretted when emotions are doing the typing.  I just prefer to give the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (13 Mar 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I would be proud to wear it, for the memory of my child's sacrifice.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



For sure.

Is there any ruling on this?Do service recipients wear it?

Has to be the hardest thing in the world.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Is there any ruling on this?Do service recipients wear it?



The Memorial Cross is not listed in the order of precedence for Canadian orders, decorations and medals and therefore my assumption is that it is not to be (as stated in the applicable Order in Council) mounted or worn in conjunction with other Canadian honours.

Canadian Orders, Decorations and Medals Directive, 1998  (see also http://www.gg.ca/honours/op/index_e.asp for updated list)


> 7. The insignia of orders, decorations and medals not listed in this Directive, as well as foreign awards the award of which has not been approved by the Government of Canada, shall not be mounted or worn in conjunction with the orders, decorations and medals listed in this Directive



The Order in Council authorizing the Memorial Cross describes it as "a memento of personal loss and sacrifice" and makes no mention of the method or occasion of wear.


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Mar 2008)

> I don't think you understand the ramifications of your actions.  I really don't.



That's awful pretentious of you, don't you think?  If you don't mind, I think i'd like to be the judge of that.



> So when your grieving family members appear...



Not only are you trying to tell me that I don't know what i'm doing, but now you wish to "assume" that I even HAVE family?



> Will that be your legacy - you get to make a final shot across the bows of "the system", show the whole chain of command that you are an "individual" and that "you'll decide what you do



Are you serious?? My legacy will NOT be whatever the CF decides for me, but what I have done.  I am the epitome of teamwork - I would not have gotten where I am today without the help of others, and someday I hope to repay those in kind.  When it comes to MY family, MY final wishes - I am an individual.  My team here IS my family.  Do you think for one minute this is a decision I "chose" on my own without discussing it with people whom it affects after the fact?



> If you have any respect for the Canadian Forces



You have NO idea, do you?  An "... intractible(_sic_) desire to demonstrate your mastery over the chain of command ..." - Do you like to hear yourself speak? Use big words? 



> To me your "personal choice" demonstrates nothing but disrespect for what the Canadian Forces is trying to do to take care of, honour and respect its people and their families.


  
  
You have that right.  You are free to decide for yourself what impressions you are willing to entertain about others - what they write, what they say.  Why don't you extend that courtesy to others?  



> I look at your "lead by example" tag line - exactly what kind of leading by example does your behaviour demonstrate?



I give my troops the freedom to stand up for what they believe in.  I have done for people in other countries - stood up for them, I stand up for my subordinates and i'll be damned if i'm not going to stand up for myself.



> You want personal choice?  A memo requesting release is an easy personal choice to make - there are no Memorial Crosses on civvy street.  Maybe you can lead by that example.



That's pretty harsh.  All because i've spoke with what little  family I have - in GREAT detail, we (as a family) have decided that this is NOT something THEY want and would like to respect their wishes.  When I try to exercise MY right, the CF (whom you say I have no respect for because i'm being selfish) wants to charge me.  The last time I checked, we were still a democracy.  You actually feel that because I don't conform to your way of thinking I should release from the CF??  Wow.  You don't even know me.  Extremist comes to mind here.  Dictator too.  



> My 2 dinar



You're entitled.


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Mar 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> CSA, it's not really for us to question someone's actions for something as serious as this.  We don't know Binrat's family history.  It could be anything from a serious family conflict to not having any family at all.



Thank you Strike - this is one of the points i'm trying to make - I shouldn't have to go into painful family problems with my Adm O, let alone my OR clerk.  My decision - no - followed by an "Are you SURE?" would suffice.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2008)

Binrat55, you have provided a few details in your post above that would have negated the entire preceding discussion if they had been included in your first post.  Your first post did come across as you simply choosing to take a high road and exercising your choice to not elect recipients.  It did not even suggest that this was based on discussions with family, or that you had given it as much thought as you apparently have.  You emphasis on the personal choice aspect helped to cause the confusion, and because CSA105 had seen the results when there are no elected recipients, all he perceived was another potential crisis, which had previously been the result in similar circumstances.


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Mar 2008)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Strike, you're right.  But the perception that his post gives is "no one can tell me what to do - ha ha, I showed them, go ahead, let them charge me!".



Perception isn't always correct, is it?



> That's a far cry from "For some serious personal reasons I'd rather not elect a Memorial Cross recipient, but my unit is not taking my request seriously."



I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY THIS!!!



> Perception is reality



How on earth is perception reality?  Based on your logic, Chris Angel really CAN fly!!!



> and this post screams "Barrack Room Lawyer



And so it should.  I'm losing a fundamental right - the right to choose.


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Mar 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Binrat55, you have provided a few details in your post above that would have negated the entire preceding discussion if they had been included in your first post.  Your first post did come across as you simply choosing to take a high road and exercising your choice to not elect recipients.  It did not even suggest that this was based on discussions with family, or that you had given it as much thought as you apparently have.  You emphasis on the personal choice aspect helped to cause the confusion, and because CSA105 had seen the results when there are no elected recipients, all he perceived was another potential crisis, which had previously been the result in similar circumstances.



Yes, I can see that, but this is my point - I should not have to justify a personal decision - anywhere, to anyone.  All I meant by my original post was that I did not agree to the CF "forcing" me to do something I did not want to do - for whatever reason.  Yes, there are things I should be forced to do, i'm not oblivious to the fact I am military, but when it comes to family, I should not have to explain my actions.  

Perception is NOT reality...


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Yes, I can see that, but this is my point - I should not have to justify a personal decision - anywhere, to anyone.



Perhaps not, but if your first post had included the words _"I have discussed this with my family"_ or _"My family is aware of my decision"_, we could have skipped the whole issue of the perception that exercising personal choice might be taking precedence over the feelings of surviving family members.  Perception may not be reality, but when facts are unclear or missing, personal experience fills the void to present likely outcomes. No-one needs to know the details, but you could have provided an assurance that you had dealt with this on the family front first.


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Mar 2008)

Fair enough, i'll give you that - BUT (you knew there was going to be one) what if the only family I had was a crazy uncle Larry who never responds to anyone and brother who is in jail for pedophilia?  I may have left out an opening sentence or two that MAY have drawn a different response (I _perceive _ CSA105 would have been just as cruel) but the retort I DID receive was uncalled for.  My original post was not insulting anyone - CSA105's post DIRECTLY insulted me - he told me to put in my release for God's sake!!!


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (14 Mar 2008)

z\


----------



## Strike (14 Mar 2008)

So are we all friends again?   ;D


----------



## rifleman (14 Mar 2008)

I'd just put your OC's name down.


----------



## geo (14 Mar 2008)

Binraqt et all...

As I pointed out earlier, blocking out the lines and clearly indicationg that "NONE" was your own personal choice, the chain of command and everyone else would know, in no uncertain terms that your choice is.... thea "no memorial cross should be issued in your name".  It's simple, it's straightforward and not subject to interpretation... by anyone... family & friends included.


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Mar 2008)

Thank you - apology accepted.

As I explained to Micheal, I guess sometimes passion in what I believe in does get the better of me - in prose only, I assure you. I have the utmost respect for the chain of command, supervisors and the CF. I command respect from those who serve under me and earn respect from those I serve.  But when I feel cornered - yes, the BB lawyer does come out.

One thing (and it would seem that we will have to agree to disagree here) is that while I agree with you on the fact that you or I don't have a RIGHT to disobey a direct order, we still have the choice  not to. By making that choice, we are also choosing the consequences that come with it.  Years and years ago just outside of Eaganville to be exact, I was directly ordered to jump back into my ML and continue the road move - yeah, the CO knew I had been awake for roughly 4 days, but it was an order, right?  My point here is that if I blindly trusted every order without question, i'd still be driving MLVW's around Petawawa.

I very rarely question orders (never out loud) but when I do - you can bet there will be a very strong reason for it.

Thanks again for the apology and please accept mine (for posts I may have made prior to reading this last one... : ) You are right - I could have started the post off a bit better... I blame it on Uncle Larry...


----------



## Gunner98 (14 Mar 2008)

Although everyone is in the process of making up, I would like to offer the following observations.  It is not my intent to fan the hot coals...

*My experience is this*: More than a few soldiers have opted after extensive discussions with their family not to designate anyone. This can result from their decision that a Memorial Cross will not in the least contribute to filling the void created in the event of their passing. In those cases the unit chain of command has discussed this with the soldier and has been supportive of their decision.  This is not a once in a lifetime offer and the form can be changed at any time.   

I perceive the proactive measures being implemented to prevent the admin burden created by a death to be concerning.  Perhaps the increasing death toll has created an unexpected flow of troubling decisions and reactions by the HQ staffs. Charging someone for not signing a document when ordered to do so is one thing.  Signing a document with the full understanding of its purpose and after choosing not to fill in some areas is another. 

I find the heated discussion over the designation of Memorial Cross recipients on an anonymous forum to be alarming. Openly stating that he discussion of the troubled family's issue becoming the reason for policies and their hard-line enforcement is also disconcerting.  It reminds me of many other inflaming, prolonged ordeals (Anthrax, Saluting the Queen, removing headdress). The CF's first loyalty should be to the soldier, he is the one that volunteered to srve and die for his country, in many cases against their family's wishes.  This in itself is part of the reason for the family's difficult bereavement process.  Assuming a soldier cannot make an informed decision without the threat of discipline and to force him to change his decision with this threat is not in keeping with our ethos. If Canada was currenty conscripting soldiers and tearing soldier from their mother's arms, then our loyalties and priorities of effort might be different. 

Yes, the deaths of our soldiers cause heartache for everyone and so they should.  We are learning a significant number of lessons as the death toll increases and similarly, we are making a number of observations for which we have not yet fully processed into lessons on which to base new policies.  IMHO, the chain of command's first reaction to every situation should not be look for NDA sections on which to discipline any perceived offenders, nor should a disagreement in on this site always result in a McDonald's application being offered to a soldier. 


MHO


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Mar 2008)

For the record though - I do think the idea of the Memorial Cross is an excellent one.  Our families are our backbone and in most cases our reason for doing what we do.  I just think that if I have the choice to enroll in the Dependants Dental Plan, then I should have a choice in the Memorial Cross.


----------



## geo (14 Mar 2008)

You do my friend, you do.  It's just a matter of being clear on your choice.  Leaving that box blank just makes it all ambiguous & subject to questions.. the dreaded questions.


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Mar 2008)

Thanks to a few of you during the past several posts, I have decided that I will take your advice and attempt to be perfectly clear.  Monday AM I will be pulling my "flagged" Memorial Cross form from my pers file, crossing out the "designate" blocks and attaching a brief but clear memo explaining my decision to do this.  It can't be any clearer than this.

Now, on to the issue of the flag...


----------



## Scoobs (14 Mar 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> Read para 4 of your post:
> 
> "IF NO DESIGNATION IS MADE, NO MEMORIAL CROSS WILL BE ISSUED."  as well, http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2006/20061213/html/si141-e.html



My original post in regards to having to complete a Memorial Cross form is correct.  This is not an issue as it is clearly stated that all CF mbrs must complete one.  It is interesting to see how quickly people jumped the gun and said, "you don't have to designate anyone".  I reviewed my original post and it clearly does not say that some must be designated.  However, I admit that I became caught up in the subsequent posts and mistakenly followed it up with "must designate".  This I admit was not correct.

I respect someone's decision not to choose recepients.  That is a personal choice.  However, my only advice is to think about this carefully prior to crossing out the section.  Although admin actions can be taken and were in the past to make sure someone's family received the Memorial Crosses, once you are gone, your wishes are only reflected in the paperwork that you leave behind.  If after due consideration, you still wish to cross this section out, then please do so.

Before anyone cuts me down for "preaching", please consider that some of us, unfortunately, have first hand experience with the application of this form.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2008)

rifleman said:
			
		

> I'd just put your OC's name down.



For some reason I thought that was the best post yet.... :blotto:


----------

