Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.