[Jabrwock]

CanadianJeff wrote:

These medals should be awarded to those that we cheer on for their heroism and heart. ... But even if I agree with the goals I still realize "it's no the destination that's important. Maybe it's the journey" (yea a Star Trek reference so shoot me).
...
I just don't see how the stories of a union boss and an abortion activist are inspiring tales that define what we love about our country.

You said it yourself, not the destination but the journey. Dedication to your cause. Fighting for change. Both Morgentaler and Halgrove spent a good chunk of their lives struggling to advance their respective causes. In the Doctor's case, he literally risked his career, and his life, to achieve that.

The division over whether these struggles constitutes "inspiring tales that define what we love about our country" comes because the country really is divided on the ultimate goals. Everywhere you go you'll find those for and against unions, and for and against abortion. To most of those in favour of unions, Halgrove was an inspiring leader who showed them what unions can do if they put their minds to enacting change. To those against unions, he was the symbol of everything they hated about unions. And to many "pro-choice" folks, Morgentaler was the single man responsible for fundamentally changing how the country treats women and the idea of "choice". To those who believe that life begins at conception, he's the equivalent of the Nazis he fled from.

Yes aborting babies is not really an "inspiring tale". Neither are views like "if only Hitler had been aborted as an unwanted baby, WWII might not have happened." But trying to change the way society treats women, and more particularly, redefining who has control over their bodies, THAT is a worthy goal.

The "ideals" comment wasn't specifically directed at you btw, but more at those who look at the end goals, and decided that because they feel that Morgentaler is a criminal, he therefore doesn't deserve the OoC.

[Kjorteo]

CanadianJeff wrote:

"So the Order of Canada is merely a popularity contest?"

No but it sure does say something when half the population of Canada disagrees with something that you were fighting for. These medals should be awarded to those that we cheer on for their heroism and heart. People like Terry Fox. People who make a diffrence with love rather then debate.

On the contrary; it's precisely when a position is wildly unpopular that fighting for it is most important. No one would ever argue against helping the poor or eradicating world hunger, but preaching about that isn't meaningful change; it's the interview portion of a Miss America pageant.

If we're talking about who does and does not deserve recognition along the lines of the Medal of Honor, Order of Canada, or whatever honors any given country gives to its most distinguished citizens, I personally can think of no braver act than standing up to the tyranny of the majority.

[Sucros]

I'd be interested if there were any prime ministers who didn't receive one after their time in office. I suspect there aren't.

It's pretty much a "we're politicians" club anyways. If you've tried to change Canada in any way, you're welcome. Write a political novel? Ooc. Make abortions legal, for better or for worse, ooc. Sit on the prime minister's chair for a few weeks? Ooc.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Kjorteo, I can understand your position, but choosing an unpopular candidate is still a bit problematic. A candidate has to be liked to be liked by someone, probably at least by the members of the committee making the choice. Otherwise he or she will obviously not get the award. But who then is qualified to make the choice if the general public isn't? The committee members might of course argue that they are right and the general public is in error, but one could always argue the opposite too.

[JJ]

Otherwise where do you draw the line? Imagine some Fred Phelps-type. He's struggled a lot to fight for a cause that he believes in, in the face of enormous public opinion. But I'd like to think that's not enough to make him deserve anything.

[Jabrwock]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

The committee members might of course argue that they are right and the general public is in error, but one could always argue the opposite too.

A valid point, but then it still comes back to the idea of a popularity contest. Public opinion can be swayed rather wildly in a short time. A best example is unions and strikes. People don't mind unions, and many think they're important, as long as they're not shutting down essential services and blocking traffic. Then people hate them, or are at least annoyed by them.

The committee, by nature of it's bureaucratic lethargy, ends up seeing a more long-term picture. It's still a popularity contest (obviously), but they have many other factors other than just "how do we feel about him this week?" to consider.

JJ wrote:

Otherwise where do you draw the line? Imagine some Fred Phelps-type. He's struggled a lot to fight for a cause that he believes in, in the face of enormous public opinion. But I'd like to think that's not enough to make him deserve anything.

On the other hand, has he accomplished anything meaningful? Fought for the betterment of others? His cause doesn't really better or benefit ANYONE. His hatred has no purpose other than to hate. It doesn't make non-gays feel better. It doesn't protect anyone. He can't even argue that it makes his few followers better people.