I don't get how this is an example of not holding someone responsible for sexual assault. He is being convicted of his offense is he not? I guess I don't see the connection to his earlier service that was awarded. His later violation doesn't undo his prior action.

I mean, say you have a kid who makes the honor roll and then the next year he is busted for a MIP. Should the prior honor roll status be revoked? I would think not.

The US case you cite should be different perhaps, though where do you draw the line on what crime denies one military honors and what one doesn't? Certainly if he was active duty he would be dishonorably discharged and lose the right to military honors, so maybe it should go by those standards?

I know that people will say that the two should have nothing to do with each other -- and already have -- but I can just say that if I found out my rapist was being awarded a medal for courage by the fucking government, I would be pissed. And this guy was actually convicted.

I mean, say you have a kid who makes the honor roll and then the next year he is busted for a MIP. Should the prior honor roll status be revoked? I would think not.

Say the kid is valedictorian. In the time between being named valedictorian and graduation, he rapes someone and admits as much in a court of law. Do you think it would still be appropriate to honor him in front of his community in a ceremony, giving him a speaking spot and all? Because I'd say no.

If they gave the guy the medal before all of this, then no of course they shouldn't try to yank it back. But that's not what seemed to happen here at all.

The US case you cite should be different perhaps, though where do you draw the line on what crime denies one military honors and what one doesn't?

Uh, violent ones? Though I honestly can see the military refusing to honor a guy for being caught with some weed . . .

According to the blog above, Cara, he had already been awarded the medal @ the time he was convicted/pleaded.

Its hard not to honor someone for risking their lives in order to save numerous others, even if they deserve to go jail time (& apparently will get jail time) for another crime they committed.

In this case the guy is being held accountable; not a good example of the problem you raise.

Sly -- again, to clarify, the honor was announced, but it has not yet been given. He will still be taking part in a ceremony, assuming he's not incarcerated at the time. See my example above. If the ceremony had already taken place, that's done deal. But this exactly parallels my valedictorian scenario. And they're going to have a ceremony that is at least partially a celebration of him.

And we hardly know yet that the guy is being held accountable. He hasn't been sentenced. Men regularly are convicted or plead guilty to sexual assault charges and receive fines, suspended sentences, or a token 30 days in jail. And while I don't know anything about the Canadian system, if it's anything like the U.S. system, he pleaded because doing so is getting him a significantly better deal in his sentencing.

And it's not like the sexual assault is far off in his past, like he regrets the assault, served his time and has worked to better himself. The assault is in fact significantly more recent than the act of bravery for which he is being honored. So I still think that to award a medal to a guy in such close proximity to his pleading guilty and being sentenced for sexual assault is in astoundingly bad taste. Since there's a news article on the subject, I'm clearly not the only one.

i can see the point of this but it still doesnt sit 100% right for me for some reason. It seems you want to define the person and the entirety of their life experience by one heinous act. Sly you say he hasnt had time to make amends, he hasnt had time for regrets. Can there be enough time passed and enough effort on the part of this guy to make it ok with you for him to be given the medal he earned?

The valedictorian model is a good one but what if a guy saves the life of 10,000 civilians, wins the medal of honor and while that award is being processed, it would take quite a while, he is convicted of say, sexual assault. Would you say he then should not be given the medal? He should get the medal but there should be no ceremony? His example to other soldiers as someone who could commit the act of bravery and selflessness is 100% wiped out by his committing sexual assault? It seems theres a lot of relativism in this. I guess I'm seeing it but I don't fully "get it".

I actually live just a couple hour's drive north of Airdrie and sadly can say that stupid things like this are pretty common with our government and giving or not giving honours to people. Really the stupidity of the Canadian government does need to be taken into account when discussing this issue.

Just a year or so ago, they refused to give postumously that same honour to an RCMP officer who died protecting people simply because the application for the honour was submitted just after the due date. We aren't talking about them saying "Oh, we'll honour him next year." We are talking about them saying the guy's deed didn't deserve to be honoured simply because the paperwork took too long.

At the same time, I'm sure if you looked back through the history of people who have received this award, there are probably quite a few who shouldn't have received it. Just make sure you get your paperwork in on time and that is really all that matters. Ug.

Okay, Dan&danica, let me try to explain this: some people think sexual assault is morally abhorrent, and that being a rapist makes someone a very bad person. So, those of us who think rape is bad, and believe that men who rape are neither heroic or honorable find it troubling that someone would receive a Star of Courage after he'd been discovered to be a rapist - even though the award is for an action that took place before the rape he's on trial for. But I do understand that for someone to see it as disturbing, he or she would have to believe that sexual assault is a very bad thing. Otherwise, yes, of course, there's no reason not to award a rapist a medal of valor, because apparently one can believe that a person can be willing and capable of sexually assaulting someone yet still be a fine and honorable man deserving of commendation.

As disgusting as this in one must remember what the alternative would be. A bravery medal recognizes a moment in ones life where they did something remarkable. In the commonwealth realms generally the Victoria Cross is the highest award for Valour. In Britain the civilian counterpart is the George Cross (in Canada, Australia and other places they have moved away from this monarchicial award and have a "cross of valour"). Underneath the higest award in the military or civil category are other medals which recognize bravery which were remarkably but not quite as remarkable as those which achieved the Victoria Cross. In Britain this is the Military Cross. In Canada is the Star of Courage/Medal of Military Valour and the Medal of Bravery.

This man, although deplorable, did something which some very influential people though warranted the star of courage. Just go to gg.ca and read some of the citations and you will be amazed and what people can do when adrenalin is running.

I dont think anyone would disagree that having a system to recognize such remarkable acts is good thing.

But what of the alternative ? What would happen if we could strip a bravery award from someone? Does this mean that what they did to earn that medal is no longer as brave as it used to be ?

For those who say strip the medal please look to the history of the honours system in the commonwealth. In the past even the Victoria Cross could be stripped if the person did something bad.
8 persons lost their Victoria Cross in this fashion

1) Stole his friend's medals for whatever reason. His VC was taken and his commited suicide in prison.

2) Lost his VC when his was convicted of bigamy.

3) Won his VC when he stayed with a mortally wounded friend while under heavy enemy fire and comforted him while he bleed to death, then carried his body back to the front lines for a proper burial. Lost his VC because of emezelment.

4) Gave medal support under heavy enemy fire to his commanding office. Lost his VC when his nerves finally gave out and went AWOL - he was never found but historians think he may have fled to New Zealand

5) Got his VC for creating a hole in a wall so that troops could get through while under heavy fire and being wounded. Lost his VC when he went nuts and stole a horse !

6) Got his VC picking up a box of ammunition which was on fire and throwing it away with his bare hands so that his comrads wouldn't be hurt. Lost his VC because he later stole a cow in ireland !

7) Received his VC for carrying his wounded comrad to safety while simultaneously cutting down the enemy with his bayonet. Lost his VC for being convicted of stealing a bag of oats under questionable testimony

8) won his VC for protected a shipment of ammunition while under heavy enemy fire and being wounded. Lost it for being too poor to pay the 10 shilling fine for his conviction of stealing some iron.

The unifying fact is that all these men had their medals taken away for something they did or were convicted of after the fact. It can also be argued that, although post-traumatic stress syndrome had not been identified at the time (it was known as "shell shock") they were probably all fucked up by what they had been through.

In 1920 King George recognized that by stripping these men of their bravery decorations the king/queen were doing a disservice to their bravery. He signed an order restoring their Victoria Cross's retroactivly and assured that no further medals for bravery would ever be removed for bad behavior or criminal convictions. He wrote in this order that hypothetically a condemned man could wear his VC on the gallows while being hanged. This has essentially been retained even as the commonwealth countries have created their own medals.

Lets flip the situation. Although as far as I can see no woman has ever won the Victoria Cross there have been many female winners of the Cross of Valour, George Cross, Star of Bravery and Medal of Bravery. What would you say if a woman was convicted of a criminal offense....hypothetically lets say statutory rape. Would you call for her bravery award to be overturned ? Does her later criminal actions change the bravery she displayed ?

Calling for a medal to be removed is just like the pro-lifers who are demanding the Dr. Morgentaler's Order of Canada be removed because they disagree with abortion. As I said, although his later actions are appalling, it doesn't change the meritoriousness of the actions which are being recognized.

dogcatmachine,

It is truly vile that you would claim that those of us that do not agree with your every point do not consider sexual assault to be abhorrent. Ultimately, the honor is not saying the person is great, it is simply saying the act it recognizes is great. Thus, I don't feel that other actions should affect the awarding of the honor.

Jordan Drew,

I would say rape is worse than all those crimes you give examples of.

Bondo, Dan&Danica, Sly:

What would you all say if the person in question was supposed to receive the medal for saving lives, but then /murdered/ an innocent person (i.e. not an enemy in war)? Because while rape is not exactly the same as murder (obviously) many of us would say it is approaching that level of seriousness... especially in comparison with some of the other crimes y'all tried to use as examples. Furthermore, most "rapists" /are/ repeat offenders.

And awarding a medal does tend to send the message that he's overall a good person. No doubt it helps comfort him while he's facing charges for his crime.

If women in the army didn't face a huge amount of sexism, including frequent sexual assault, they would probably perform at higher levels and win more of these medals of bravery. I think we have to look at the whole picture here.

Ninapendamaishi, I think Jordan Drew's point was that it doesn't matter what a person does after the fact- there is now a rule in place, stating that those honors recognize a single act, not a whole person, and that they cannot be taken back. So whether rape or murder is better or worse than the crimes mentioned is irrelevant.

The thing that bothers me most about this is that my Uncle, who is a Lt. Colonel in the US Army, tested positive for heavy depression, but was sent out anyway for another tour. Then when he came back and they drug tested him, he tested positive for marijuana, but they didn't tell him, they waited and told his civilian job. Then when he went to retire, they were like "oh yeah, you had weed in your system" and tried to take away over 600 dollars a month in pension from him. for weed.

But this guy can sexually assault a person, which isn't just an isolated event but affects a person for a lifetime, and still gets honored with a medal. I'm sorry, but if you're that good of a person that you get a medal, you shouldn't be out sexually assualting people. I'm sure they were very courageous, but they made a bad decision and they don't deserve it at this point. Its one thing for non-violent crimes, but rape/sexual assualt/murder?

The point of my comment as to explain that future action (however awful) do not change the level of bravery displayed in a previous act.

As King George wrote in 1920 a man could face capital punishment and still be allowed to wear the Victoria Cross to his execution.

There is also the fact that in Canada taking away a medal is a very rare occurrence (unlike in Britain or France where it is procedural). Canada's honours system includes provision for the removal of a person from an Order.

A quick explanation. The bravery medals are considered decorations - they are rewards for bravery or merit. They do not carry with them any expections or requirement for future behavior. While there is a mechanism for the removal of them (its called an Order-in-council, a piece of paper the governor general signs to express the will of the crown) for decorations these would only be used if evidence is found proving that the heroic or meritorious act never took place. Bravery must have witnesses to be recognized so this is highly unlikely to ever happen. In the 1990's a "documentary" suggested that Billy Bishop's Victoria Cross was obtained through false testimony as his was the only one to be awarded based on self-testimony (Bishop sunk an enemy battleship in World War I). These allegations met with widespread condemnation in Britain and the commonwealth.

An Order has its origins in classical orders of chivalry. An Order is a class of persons who are united by a common theme. Usually in an Order of Merit they are united by a goal or motto. The highest Order in Canada is the "Order of Canada". These people are united by being living under the orders motto "Desiderantes Meliorum Patrium" (or Those who desire a better country). This is a very open category, which can include anyone from anti-choice right wing hacks to people like Dr. Henry Morgentaler who fought to decriminalize abortion in Canada. Heck, this even includes a handful of people who have fought to tear Canada apart (ie Alice Parizeau). There is a procedural mechanism for removing people from the Order of Canada if they "bring the Order into disrepute". So far this has only happened twice. The First was Alan Eagleson. When he was appointed he was widely admired as a hockey legend. Years later it came to light that he had stolen millions of dollars from professional hockey. He was given an ultimatum by the Governor General: "resign from the order or I will remove you". He resigned.

The next one is still a little controversial. His name was David Ahenakew. He was a leader of aboriginal Canadians in Alberta and widely respected for his work helping first nations societies. A few years back he was having a conversation while a tape recorder happened to be running and said something like "the jews are parasites and that is why hitler fried six million of them". Naturally his comments led to widespread outrage. The procedure for removing someone involves the Governor General first asking them to explain and justify their actions. He explained that he though he was having a private conversation and it was none of the GG's buissness. This was rejected, and he was eventually found guilty of spreading hate. After his conviction he was forcibly removed from the Order by the GG. His conviction was overturned on appeal, never-the-less Rideau Hall has said that his removal stays in effect because his actions "brought the order into disrepute".

No remember, these are the only two examples of people being removed from a Canadian Order. There are many other questionable people. Sprinter Ben Johnson was appointed to the Order of Canada for being the fasted man in the world and a role model for young people. He later infamously tested positive for steroids at two olympic games and was banned for life from the sport. Never-the-less he was not removed.

A chartered accounted was appointed in the 1990s for whatever reason, but after her death it was discovered that she had a criminal record for embezzelment. Never-the-less she cannot be removed posthumously.

Stephen Fonyo raised a fortune for cancer reseach, but later developed a cocain addiction and was convicted because of it. He is still in the Order

Garth Drabinsky was a well respected theatrical producer, but was convicted of stealing massive ammounts of money from his creditors and is a fugitive from American justice. Hes still in the Order.

Finally Conrad Black. This is a man who stole the Dominion Grocery Worker's pension fund BEFORE he was appointed. After his appointment he vainly wanted to become a British Lord and renounced his Canadian Citizenship. He is now encarcerated in a US prison. Never the less the Governor Generals' Order of Canada Advisory Council chose not to strip him of the Order of Canada, and the GG and Prime Minster haven't taken away the Diplomatic Passport Brian Mulroney gave him in the 90s.

As I said, this is totally unlike Britain where people are removed from the Order of the British Empire all the time.

And all of this is entirely irrelevant, since no one will ever be stripped of their bravery decorations. Period. Man, I need to make shorter comments.

Here's the problem with the medal.

Men and women are presented this medal because they are heroes and to be revered. Ask the other recipients if the medal is tarnished because a sexual predator, a felon, a rapist shares it with them.

The military is held to a higher standard than civilians.

No medal.

It makes no sense.

Bondo,

I'm not sure where you get the impression from my brief post that I'm claiming "that those of us that do not agree with your every point do not consider sexual assault to be abhorrent."

The post centers on one point alone: that a man who commits sexual assault is not a courageous and honorable man deserving commendation. And that it's insulting to his victim and to the people in whose name the medal is given to give an admitted rapist a medal for valor in a public ceremony.

And, yes, I believe that if one considers sexual assault a really bad thing, one would be appalled at publicly lauding a rapist, even one who acted bravely in another situation. Apparently, you think it can be balanced out by performing other good deeds.

Tell me, how many good deeds balance out one sexual assault? For example, if a soldier acts bravely in the field, risking his life for his comrades, is he allowed x number of rapes? If the person in question had been faced with a situation where less lives were at risk, and his actions were somewhat less potentially risky to himself, thus not earning him a medal, would he still be a fine and courageous man?

I doubt you would get many complaints from the general public on striping this man on his medal but the question is where would it end ? Which crimes do you take the medal for and which are left alone ? Certainly stealing a bag of oats is now considered a laughable reason for taking a medal, but doesn't any crime tarnish the reputation of the honour ?

Just to put it simply, the other way has been tried and found to not work, so in 1920 it was changed to the current model which has functioned for 88 years. I doubt this one crime will break the mold.

I'm still fence sitting on this argument because it seems like their are good points on both sides. What I am interested to know whether your opinions would change if he had committed the assault first and later performed a heroic act? Would he deserve the medal in this scenario?

I doubt you would get many complaints from the general public on striping this man on his medal but the question is where would it end ? Which crimes do you take the medal for and which are left alone ?

Well, I guess it would begin and end according to current public opinion and contemporary mores and ethics. Stealing a bag of oats isn't cause for execution or long imprisonment in our society, but in other times and in other cultures it was a big deal. Sexual assault wasn't any kind of prosecutable crime throughout much of human history, depending on who was assaulted (meaning the person's class, or the class of the person the girl or woman was the property of), but now it's generally considered "bad" in the U.S. and in Canada (where this medal situation is taking place.)

And a value judgment is made by someone as to what constitutes being outstandingly heroic or courageous, and thus deserving of this medal. It's not existing in a vacuum.

So worrying about a "slippery slope" seems kind of silly. Where does it end, meaning I suppose "what's considered sufficiently bad enough to either revoke this honor or decide to not present it at all"?

Well, apparently raping someone isn't considered bad enough. Now I disagree; I think that's a truly heinous thing to do. But again, that's personal opinion, and some people just don't find sexually assaulting a person that terrible a thing. For me, it's deplorable enough to outweigh other heroic acts - it's wonderful and courageous to help save people in a fire or other disaster, but that's overshadowed by having the propensity to forcibly shove one's cock into someone as she cries and/or begs one to stop. It just seems inherently unjust, mean spirited, unheroic, and not particularly indicative of a courageous character to do such a thing, so I'm inclined to say, no medal of valor for a rapist, but stealing a bag of oatmeal=not that big a deal.

Jessica Gottlieb: Men and women are presented this medal because they are heroes and to be revered.

No, they are presented the medal because they did something courageous. No judgment in regards to their over-all moral worth should be inferred.

"Physical courage" is courage in the face of physical pain, hardship, or threat of death, while "moral courage" is the courage to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, or discouragement. (wikipedia)

...morality is inferred by the concept alone, it's inseparable.
He should not receive a medal because he CHOSE to commit a heinous act upon someone else. That really does nullify any great thing he has done in the past. Raping a person isn't something that has to be done out of hunger (like stealing food), it's not accidental (like hitting someone with a vehicle).

This is ever so slightly off-topic, but I can`t help but wonder if the situation would have turned out differently if the victim in question was young enough to be considered a child? Just a thought...

FYI, Doonesbury just finished a series of strips dealing with sexual assault in the military. We have them up on the CA NOW blog as part of our Sunday comics post: http://www.feministing.com/archives/010854.html