Comments about the latest news articles

I am in brother ruck and all airborne

Well after reading this then printing this off a few days ago to send to my oldest son for his review on what this professor wrote, he as I just shook our heads. Boy like many would I love to meet this Man, and bring my son with Me then the two with a PHD can have a chat ref his article, like my son says many have opinions on issues but he himself will base his on facts and not spectulation, or a grant provided just to post a paper for any institutions, or party benifit for self gain. This would be great as my son has lived with someone with PTSD myself so he allready has the facts. Son 1 PHD-eng SON 2 mbna/masters econ(H) CPA, world security certified, 3 daughter opthamolagy, now let the accademics fly, Im just happy my 3 attended QUEENs, Western, MCmaster, Heck I think this year I and a few of the boys head to Ottawa for Remembrance Day this year, we try based on our health each year to go to diffrent community, and if my body will allow I would put on rucksack so you can identify me and come for a chat.

I want to meet with this guy finally intelligence supreme or is it just plain ole common fracking dog

Re: There is no 'sacred duty' to Canada's veterans, Aug. 6.

Prof. Robinson is being provocative when he suggests injured veterans should only receive standard medical resources available to the population in general.

He states that members of the Forces and veterans are "volunteers" and that being injured is part of their job. True, but we need to think more carefully about the nature of their volunteering.

I recall that many of our Afghanistan casualties are from regions of Canada which are considered economically disadvantaged. In such areas the military tradition may represent the best opportunity for a stable career to a purposeful, ambitious young adult. Indeed, it may be that in such regions the weak economy in effect "volunteers'" them.

I would also suggest that military members usually undertake to do our "dirty work," operations in unpleasant places at unpleasant times in the face of danger and threatening or unco-operative people. Think of those who volunteered to fly over Germany in the Second World War or to be peacekeepers in Cyprus or the Golan Heights. The majority of Canadians support these actions but are unwilling or unable to participate, so we owe a particular duty to those who do.

In recent years, our government, in the name of all of us, has made generous promises to serving members of the Forces and veterans.

Now is the time to fulfil those promises by going the extra mile to provide the injured and wounded with additional, superior care. It is not the time to renege on those promises.

Ian Guthrie

Ottawa

http://www.leaderpost.com/story_print.html?id=8786016&sponsor=

NOW THIS GUY GETS IT!!!!

Damn straight brother the only problem with this problem is the arseholes ticking the boxes.

Agreed very negative articles by academics. If you think about it the majority of academics since the 60's have a hatred towards wars which means soldiers and finally veterans.

Personally I believe it's the bureaucrats who want these reports to come to the surface now. Think about it next year at this time Canada is totally out of Afghanistan. In a few years there is going to be a flood of PTSD claims, suicides, assaults on family/friends.

So by having these very bogus and vague studies come out now is "brainwashing" Jane & Joe Canadian that the war had nothing to do with elevated suicide rates and it's a few bad apples from the military that are causing these domestic problems.

Most of these stories if you read them carefully gleam off of an American study over a 20-30 year period. Then there is a very brief comment on Canada needs to study it. Canada needs to study it is code for "we don't study the problem but we will use the American report to make an assumption"

That is why the Equitas lawsuit is important. The Senate hearings this fall where it is the OVO's chance to bring this damn NVC what it was promised to be...a living charter. Veterans being educated about where the GoC is failing in taking care of soldiers and vets.

Hell just look at the brain child called JPSU/IPSC! I went to the opening at the Borden IPSC and asked one question...Where's VAC? The DND and VAC need to work together on this because without VAC what happens to the soldier who is not going to be retained in the CF? Right now there is a WO being charged with the murder of his wife who is attached posted to JPSU Ottawa. A JPSU with over 180 personnel awaiting release who sit around drink coffee all day, bitch, and wallow in self-pity which leads to the soldier truly believing he is a loser.

Spread the word people these academic reports are pure bullshyte!

you may be right Teen, overall, but these last two articles have certainly not done us any favors.

Actually Rex the Ottawa Citizen is great at doing these stories the so called superior academics at Canada's great university institutes write papers about.

So to any newspaper editors or reporters reading this...are you going to let the Ottawa Citizen do all the heavy lifting?

What is it about writers at the Ottawa Herald being against the Military. The latest article says that deployment doesn't increase the risk of suicide, which is complete and utter crap. They say that studies indicate that the number of soldiers who commit suicide is actually lower than the average citizen, but they also stated that the report did not include suicides among Veterans. After the uniform is off is when the highest risk occurs. While in uniform, there is often more support for those suffering, like caring and understanding neighbors, medical staff that have the power to order you to attend appointments, and even suicide watches with MP's (which work most times, but not all), for those identified as high risk. But once you are a civie, all that support is taken away, and many vets find themselves floundering without the structure that military life provides. So until VAC gets off their asses and starts recording and reporting the number of suicides among Veterans, these so called "research studies" aren't worth the paper they are printed on, and neither are the reporters that treat them as fact.

Also, you have to realize that VAC will use these reports as ammunition to deny paying death benefits for suicides as consequential to PTSD or an OSI.

Further to last..

Maybe the wrong side of my Sacrifice Medal is facing to the 'public eye', but I'm pretty sure it reads "Sacrifice" on the backside of it. Where does the motorcyclist hang his Sacrifice Medal for similar injuries sustained? O right...he will not be presented with one. I see how this works...

The Canadian Victoria Cross


Eligibility Members of the Canadian Forces or an allied force serving with the Canadian Forces on or after 1 January 1993.

Awarded for The most conspicuous bravery, daring or pre-eminent acts of valour, self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy.

No civilian, whether welfare recipient or motorcyclist or of ANY respected field of civilian employment, will EVER be eligible for the Victoria Cross..

You bet your ass there is a sacred obligation to Canada's veterans

I was lucky enough to be processed this round of Sissip checks so now I turn all my attention to this New battlefield I Will Not Leave a Veteran behind the War is not over for us just adjusted my arcs of fire.
Tom

What can we honestly do here Jeffrey just give me some guidance and I am in gotta get this country on board.

If these are the fucking morons we have to argue with then our battle should be easy because this dick is an idiot and I dare his ass to come up here and drive through Petawawa without being incensed. This place is like vs God damn war zone and it is not hard to find our walking wounded who should be given the utmost respect and treated as heroes. Facking dumb ass biker wannabe moron.

It’s time to restore the social contract with our war veterans

MICHAEL PRINCE
THE GLOBE AND MAIL
Last updated Wednesday, Aug. 07 2013, 9:55 AM EDT


Prime Minister Stephen Harper, left, walks with a Second World War veteran at Sai Wan War Cemetery at a Remembrance Day ceremony in Hong Kong on Nov. 11, 2012. (BOBBY YIP/REUTERS)

What, through our federal government, do Canadians owe our veterans? What is our debt to injured soldiers, our obligation to weary warriors ravished by trauma, and our responsibility to the widows and widowers of veterans? These questions are fundamental to individual and collective beliefs of patriotism, security and honour.

These issues are getting attention once again following a class-action suit against the federal government launched by six veterans of the Afghanistan war regarding perceived inadequacies of the New Veterans Charter passed by Parliament in 2005.

Existing public programs and services to veterans authorized by Parliament, including lump-sum payments, are of course lawful activities of public policy. This does not mean, however, that they are adequate. For many veterans, the great risk of lump-sum payments for compensation for disabilities is that the adverse effects of combat may not fully manifest themselves for several years, well after financial compensation has been decided.

Contrary to claims by Justice Canada lawyers, the federal government and veterans do have a special relationship. It is an extraordinary association rooted deeply in Canadian military history, forged in human sacrifice and nation building, enacted in public policy commitments and expressed through enduring symbols of remembrance. Public policies in particular can be seen as societal recognition of the contributions made by veterans, with particular reference to the costs they incur and the contributions they make to society. The distinctive treatment accorded veterans in federal policy is also apparent by the fact that veterans have had a specific department and minister representing them, in one form or another, since 1918.

Canadians have long regarded disabled veterans as highly deserving of compensation. In fact, the Pensions Act of 1919, which offered disability pensions for soldiers, was the first substantial federal intervention in the field of social policy in Canada. By the 1940s, social security provisions for the armed forces and their dependants were more advanced in scope and benefits than those for civilian Canadians.

The fiduciary obligation of the federal government to veterans is therefore multifaceted; true, the relationship is historical and cultural; it also involves ethical and legal duties.

In this relationship, veterans occupy a position of vulnerability with reference to the federal government. That vulnerability takes many forms: it can be medical, financial or social in character. Regrettably, working relations with federal officials are not always distinguished by trust, good faith and acting in the best interests of veterans.

There are too many stories of bureaucratic stalling, breaches of confidentiality of files, homeless veterans, and struggles by veterans and their families for support. Canadian veterans and their families ought to be able to reasonably expect respectful treatment and adequate standards of care. Even with the creation of the veterans’ ombudsman office several years ago, problems persist and the need for reform remains. Sadly, to voice serious concerns about their fights for care and battles for support, a National Day of Protest has become an annual event for Canadian veterans in November.

The government of Stephen Harper must work on restoring a constructive, open, and respectful relationship with Canada’s veterans and their families. As first step, Justice Minister Peter MacKay should instruct his departmental lawyers to abstain from any language that denies the existence of a special relationship between government and veterans. To let this line of argument continue will rightly enrage veterans.

Second, the federal government should confirm that there is, has been, and always will be a special contract, a moral and political obligation, with veterans. This fall’s Speech from the Throne would be a fitting occasion to underline the relationship between the Crown and the military. A third step, also symbolic but profoundly significant, would be to add a preamble to the New Veterans Charter that affirms the sacred trust or social obligation between parliament and the veterans.

This fall, an ongoing parliamentary committee review of the New Veterans Charter will take place. As a fourth step, this process should produce concrete measures that improve support services for families; enhance the financial security and standard of living of veterans; and, increase the range and types of vocational rehabilitation and supports for the employment opportunities of veterans.

Continuing to deny and diminish this special relationship with veterans feels like the Harper government is stomping on poppies.

Michael J. Prince is Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy at the University of Victoria, the son of a Second World War veteran, and the co-author with Pamela Moss of a forthcoming book, Weary Warriors: Power, Knowledge, and the Invisible Wounds of Soldiers.