Monday, June 7, 2010

The "Human Rights" of Dead Soldiers

If an unmarried soldier is killed during a tour of duty, should his survivors get the same monetary pay-off from the government that survivors of a married soldier get? I'm not sure, but do you think this is a question of "human rights," and that the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission should be weighing in on it? From CTV News:
OTTAWA — The Canadian Human Rights Commission is examining whether Ottawa discriminates against families of single soldiers killed overseas by excluding them from a quarter-million dollar death benefit.
The Canadian Press has learned the agency plans to convene a tribunal hearing some time in the next few months. It will weigh the complaint of an Ontario couple whose son Cpl. Matthew Dinning died in a roadside bomb attack in Kandahar four years ago.

"Married and single soldiers have fought side-by-side in Afghanistan, they wore the same uniform, they died for the same country, the caskets were draped in the same flag, they should be treated the same as far as death benefits go," Lincoln Dinning said in an interview from his Wingham, Ont. home.

"It's a moral and ethical issue. And it's about treating all fallen soldiers the same."

Whenever a married Canadian soldier is killed in action, the surviving spouse and children are eligible for a one-time, $250,000 lump-sum payment meant to help them with the costs of transitioning to civilian life. The cash is on top of whatever life insurance a soldier may carry.

But single soldiers are excluded from the benefit, which was introduced when the Conservative government implemented the new Veterans Charter in 2006. The charter fundamentally reorganized the way former soldiers, sailors and aircrew are treated after they retire and the benefits their families receive.

"This is not about money because $250,000, (nor) $250 million is going to bring any of the soldiers back," Dinning said. "It's about treating all fallen soldiers the same, with dignity and respect, regardless of their marital status."...
This is about the money.

1 comment:

paladin3001 said...

I agree. It's about the money. Most married soldiers will have one or two children as well as a spouse. The money is necessary for married soldiers widows. A single soldier doesn't require that much of a death benefit. Requiring the death benefit be equal for both types of soldier is stupidity of the highest order. The government does need to provide a death benefit, because almost all insurance companies will not pay out life policies to any one killed in a war zone. It's in the fine print.