Remembrance Day occasionally generates issues in the weeks leading up to it, which are then put aside until next year once the occasion has passed. An issue arose this year that deserves ongoing attention with a hope of resolution. That is the matter of wearing the military medals of a deceased family member. Discussion arose after a widow announced she wanted to wear her late husband’s medals, but was afraid to do so for fear of prosecution under section 419 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This provision was introduced following the First World War to control fraudulent practices. The widow’s conundrum spawned media attention. I took part in a discussion on CTV’s Alberta Primetime broadcast. Other guests included the president of an Edmonton branch of the Royal Canadian Legion and a man in Newfoundland heading a group interested in the issue who appeared by electronic linkup.
The Legion’s position is that the law should be observed and that the present law forbids any such wearing. That misstates the law. Section 419 is not a blanket prohibition of wearing another person’s medals. The section prohibits the practice “without lawful excuse” but gives no indicator of what such lawful excuse might be, leaving it on the person wearing another’s medals to prove the excuse in court.
It would have been interesting had the constabulary surged onto the stage of Edmonton’s Citadel Theatre during the recent production of Billy Bishop Goes To War to bust the actor playing the air ace and wearing uniform ribbons representing the medals awarded Bishop. This too is forbidden by the bald wording of section 419. It has always been my understanding that there is an exemption for theatrical performances, but that is not in the wording of the section, so I assume it was a reference I once read to a court case holding such usage to be a lawful excuse.
I believe that wearing a deceased family member’s medals is another lawful excuse, when it’s done to commemorate not to impersonate. I believe that at one time the accepted custom in Canada was to do this provided the medals be worn on the right side of the body, opposite where medal recipients wear them. That is still accepted custom in Britain and New Zealand, and has been incorporated into legislation in Australia.
With three other commonwealth countries still having such a practice, it would be surprising if Canada had not at one time observed it. Three Canadian military veterans have mentioned to me that, from their early military days, it was their understanding that the practice was allowed in Canada. One — my father — specifically mentioned seeing military recruits showing up for service at the start of the Second World War wearing their father’s medals on the right side.
Undeniably, the practice has not been observed here for years, and given the current debate it would be useful if a military historian could dig into the matter and establish the extent of the custom in Canada. Providing the deceased person has not left any direction to the contrary, I support the practice as a meaningful exhibition of respect and pride which allows family members to pay a visible tribute to a deceased person’s military service. I think we should follow Australia’s example, and amend section 419 to specify the practice is allowed.
St. Albert resident David Haas is a director of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment Museum Foundation.
