Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Publish Day - Ink Blog - A soldier's story

My column in today's London Free Press touches on an issue that cuts to the core of living in a democratic society: namely, how we treat the families of servicepeople killed in the line of duty.

The bottom line in the case of one Canadian private killed in a vehicle accident in Afghanistan last October is that his family won't be getting anything because he wasn't married.

It's discriminatory injustices like this that practically beg a writer with any audience to pick up the pen and at least try to right such an obvious wrong.
Single soldiers any less dead?
Published Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The London Free Press

You'd think that someone who dies for his country would deserve to be recognized in some way for his sacrifice. But Canada's new tradition, apparently, is to rip off a dead soldier's family.

Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield died last November in Afghanistan when his armoured vehicle rolled over. Parliament had passed a new Veterans Charter the previous April that, among other things, entitled families of soldiers killed while on duty to a $250,000 tax-free payment.

Those eligible for the payments must be dependent children, spouses or common-law partners. The military says Woodfield's family won't receive anything because he was single.

This, wrongly, tells single people that they are somehow less valued members of society.

I can see the recruitment posters now: Join the army. See the world. But be prepared to get the cold shoulder if you're not hitched.

This is not the way to recruit the professional military of tomorrow. This is not how we thank those who died in service of our nation.

-30-
Your turn: Is the Canadian policy a just one? Are we doing the right thing for our people in uniform? Is it time for the Canadian military to update its definitions of "family"?

5 comments:

Canadian Mark said...

If I may quote Whinnie the Pooh...

"A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly."

The reason for this particular quote, is that I feel the policy you speak of makes only about as much sence.

Kara said...

In a way I understand the logic their using, a single soldier usually has no one depending on them for their well being, unlike a married soldier or a soldier with dependents. Do I think it's right? I don't know enough about the policy to comment. As long as the military takes care of burial costs and the cost of handling the soldiers final businesses, then I can't say I see much wrong with it. It seems to be a policy instated to take care of those who remain behind, rather then a statement of the value of one persons life....just my thoughts as an Army Brat and growing up military.
K.

barbie2be said...

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong..... the parent's still lost a child and should have some compensation. nothing is going to bring their son/daughter back to them but please!!!!!!!! that is discrimination in full effect!

Tracie Nall said...

I guess i sort of understand it, but really even if you aren't married there are expenses when you die that someone has to take care of, and that would probably end up being your parents or whoever-right?? So they would need the money to do those things at least. Really it just seems nit-picky to me for them to make these distinctions.

Anonymous said...

I think it's wrong. I certainly don't know enough about Canadian politics, but I know in the US it's disgraceful how we treat our troops.