Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
betsy

Lowering the flag for slain soldiers?

Recommended Posts

Canada's time with these troops is over, now is it is the military's time to honour thier fallen comrads, and once that is done it will be the families time to honour and to put to rest thier loved ones.

And don't give me that crap about you have the right to know, or the media has the right to cover the news...It's all about respect for our fallen. These events should not be about politics or turned into a media circus

Playing devil's advocate - don't the citizens of Canada have the right to observe their fallen sons returning ? If the media sees fit to honour them in that way, why does the government feel that it knows better ?

They are not the media's to honour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Hardner:

Playing devil's advocate - don't the citizens of Canada have the right to observe their fallen sons returning ? If the media sees fit to honour them in that way, why does the government feel that it knows better ?

Are you suggesting that the rights of Canadian citizens out wiegh the rights of the family. And again at what piont do we say we've seen enough...You want to honour these men then show them and thier families your support..And if you think that you are doing that by watching the funeral on TV or reading an article in the paper your wrong.

And your joking right, about the media, honour has nothing to do with it, it's all about viewers and selling copies, nothing more. I believe that the government has been asked by one of the families to limit the press and cerimonies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Army Guy spoke of the pomp and ceremony that will take place when the four dead soldiers are flown into Trenton - only problem is - Harper has forbidden media access and once again shut out Canadians from the reality of this war.

Want to see Army ceremony? Go visit Kingston in the summer when they hold the drill competitions. In the meantime, if you really want to see the military up close, join it. The taps are not for public consumption, they are to honor fellow and fallen soldiers, not sell papers, tickets to curious onlookers, people wanting some sort of spectacle or use as a political statement.

Reality of war? People get killed, things get destroyed. If people can't figure that out then they certainly wouldn't get much out of watching a flag draped coffin being carried by soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you suggesting that the rights of Canadian citizens out wiegh the rights of the family. And again at what piont do we say we've seen enough...You want to honour these men then show them and thier families your support..And if you think that you are doing that by watching the funeral on TV or reading an article in the paper your wrong.

Well, we don't restrict media from interviewing the families of murder victims. I've seen them confronted by cameras, still in grief with recent news of their loss. At least coverage of returning bodies is done with a measure of decorum.

And your joking right, about the media, honour has nothing to do with it, it's all about viewers and selling copies, nothing more. I believe that the government has been asked by one of the families to limit the press and cerimonies.

Maybe they shouldn't even release the news that people have been killed in action. That way, there would be no story at all to follow. The press wouldn't even be aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a matter of respect for the families. If the families want the media to broadcast their son's funerals they have every right to do so.

Why does the Government feel that it knows better than the media? Hmmm, the Government was elected and will have to face the people in another election. The media are not elected, and not accountable to anyone. I am much more comfortable with a government making decisions of this kind than the unelected, unaccountable media.

Playing devil's advocate - don't the citizens of Canada have the right to observe their fallen sons returning ? If the media sees fit to honour them in that way, why does the government feel that it knows better ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Hardner:
Playing devil's advocate - don't the citizens of Canada have the right to observe their fallen sons returning ? If the media sees fit to honour them in that way, why does the government feel that it knows better ?

Are you suggesting that the rights of Canadian citizens out wiegh the rights of the family. And again at what piont do we say we've seen enough...You want to honour these men then show them and thier families your support..And if you think that you are doing that by watching the funeral on TV or reading an article in the paper your wrong.

And your joking right, about the media, honour has nothing to do with it, it's all about viewers and selling copies, nothing more. I believe that the government has been asked by one of the families to limit the press and cerimonies.

As long as it is at the family's request then I can accept that. It should always be up to them if they want media invovled or not, this is not a thing for the government to decide, it is for the surviving people of the fallen soldier.

This debate is stupid and we should just leave all those decisions with the family.

OTOH, they are Canadian soldiers and should be honoured by all of Canada, they gave their life for this country, we owe them the respect. Give them a moment of silence, think about them. If you want to honour the troops, do just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've crossed the line from devil's advocate to unsupported ranting.

The amount of coverage of murder victim's families and the return of fallen soldier's bodies should be up to the families. Bad press behaviour on the one hand doesn't justify arguments against the Government's new protocol on the other.

Where did you get the last part of your post? Seems like a pretty weak argument. Nobody is suggesting that and it isn't founded in reality. Is that a sign that you have nothing to actual rebut the counter-arguments with?

Well, we don't restrict media from interviewing the families of murder victims. I've seen them confronted by cameras, still in grief with recent news of their loss. At least coverage of returning bodies is done with a measure of decorum.

Maybe they shouldn't even release the news that people have been killed in action. That way, there would be no story at all to follow. The press wouldn't even be aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've crossed the line from devil's advocate to unsupported ranting.

The amount of coverage of murder victim's families and the return of fallen soldier's bodies should be up to the families. Bad press behaviour on the one hand doesn't justify arguments against the Government's new protocol on the other.

Where did you get the last part of your post? Seems like a pretty weak argument. Nobody is suggesting that and it isn't founded in reality. Is that a sign that you have nothing to actual rebut the counter-arguments with?

Well, as I said I'm playing devil's advocate. That sort of implies I don't really believe in my position, and am trying to argue it rather academically doesn't it ? I don't really think this matters either way.

But your point about families of crime victims isn't really valid either. My point is: there is a right-to-know issue that trumps the families' feelings at a certain point.

Should the press pester families and put cameras in their faces ? No.

Should we censor all coverage so that nobody knows what's going on ? No.

The ideal is obviously somewhere in between. I don't really see what's wrong with having cameras beside the tarmac though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should we censor all coverage so that nobody knows what's going on ? No.

A flag draped coffin is being carried off a plane. You heard about the deaths as the military announces them, you even get the names, how they died and when the bodies will be back in Canada. What more do people need?

The military wishes to have their private ceremony. The families can choose wether to have cameras at the gravesite or not. So, problem and reason for?

If the public wishes to pay respects, every Nov 11 they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cameras were able to get pictures from outside the base.

Not allowing cameras on the tarmac isn't censoring "all coverage".

Right to know? I'm not familiar with that. Which section of the charter does that fall under? :lol:

How little attention do you want to pay to the family's feelings?

But your point about families of crime victims isn't really valid either. My point is: there is a right-to-know issue that trumps the families' feelings at a certain point.

Should the press pester families and put cameras in their faces ? No.

Should we censor all coverage so that nobody knows what's going on ? No.

The ideal is obviously somewhere in between. I don't really see what's wrong with having cameras beside the tarmac though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should the press pester families and put cameras in their faces ? No.

Should we censor all coverage so that nobody knows what's going on ? No.

The ideal is obviously somewhere in between. I don't really see what's wrong with having cameras beside the tarmac though.

I'm with Michael on this. Deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan is clearly an issue of concern to us all. The deaths occurred because of our government policies.

At the same time, the deaths affect their families in ways that go far, far beyond the rest of us.

There should be some middleground but I don't think it is up to the families to have to decide. To begin with, most families in such a situation are hardly competent to make such a decision. In addition, the modern media has a way of insinuating itself into any dramatic photo-op. The government must decide.

----

There is a crass subtext to this whole debate that has been ignored in this thread, and seems to be ignored elsewhere too.

The anti-war, anti-Harper Left wants to publicize these war dead because it feels this will shame and embarrass Harper in the eyes of the Canadian public. The idea is that flags at half-mast for every death, constant photos of returning caskets, the eventual photo of a long line of body bags will make Harper and the Tories unelectable.

The American Left believes such publicity turned US public opinion against the Vietnam War, and Canada's Left is taking a leaf out of the US Left playbook.

I'm not sure Canada's Left is reading this issue correctly at all. The Left believes this kind of "bad publicity" will shift public opinion among the key voters who may vote Tory. I'm not so certain.

What evidence is there that the Taliban is a significant force in Afghanistan? Have the last four years done nothing to weaken thier position? Also: if the place is in a state of war and chaos, it can hardly be a stable place for a terrorist group to set up shop: the stability of the country under the Taliban is what drew Al Qaeda there in the first place: it's a lot harder to organize in the middle of a war zone.
Who planted the bomb that killed these four soldiers? Karzai has thanked Canada for being in Afghanistan and preventing violent attacks against his government. And sorry BD, the Taliban were a motley group of disorganized, uncivilized, young fanatics. Think what would happen if some young punks with an adolescent racist ideology and access to guns took over a high school. To pursue the analogy, Al Qaeda worked out of a classroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Government has made its decision. They have no control over what the families do at their private funerals.

Very good point about using the flag situation for political gain. It's pretty sad what the Liberals are trying to do with this issue. But look for them to get lauded for being focused and dogged in opposition over the issue.

At the same time, the deaths affect their families in ways that go far, far beyond the rest of us.

There should be some middleground but I don't think it is up to the families to have to decide. To begin with, most families in such a situation are hardly competent to make such a decision. In addition, the modern media has a way of insinuating itself into any dramatic photo-op. The government must decide.

----

There is a crass subtext to this whole debate that has been ignored in this thread, and seems to be ignored elsewhere too.

The anti-war, anti-Harper Left wants to publicize these war dead because it feels this will shame and embarrass Harper in the eyes of the Canadian public. The idea is that flags at half-mast for every death, constant photos of returning caskets, the eventual photo of a long line of body bags will make Harper and the Tories unelectable.

The American Left believes such publicity turned US public opinion against the Vietnam War, and Canada's Left is taking a leaf out of the US Left playbook.

I'm not sure Canada's Left is reading this issue correctly at all. The Left believes this kind of "bad publicity" will shift public opinion among the key voters who may vote Tory. I'm not so certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, we don't restrict media from interviewing the families of murder victims. I've seen them confronted by cameras, still in grief with recent news of their loss. At least coverage of returning bodies is done with a measure of decorum.

And this goes to show that the media has no honour code, And has proven that time and time again, Be it with your example or this example, it sells papers, and entices viewers. It's all about profit, and has nothing to do with respect , or honouring our fallen.

Is it done with a measure of decorum,in the past after the offical cerimony on the tarmac was completed, reporters and camera crews were climbing over each other to try to get to family and friends for a comment...It was the action of a few soldiers that politily but firmly told them to "not today" which ensured a small argument and scuffle..

Maybe they shouldn't even release the news that people have been killed in action. That way, there would be no story at all to follow. The press wouldn't even be aware

Then you would have a real story, one about cover-up...regardless of what the government does or does not do they are going to be wrong...In this case our government has been very transparent with this whole matter, it has allowed the media access to the camp in Afgan,to the troops that were involved, to all the rest of the troops, to where it happened, everything...Instead the media has turned it into a circus,A debate over the postion of our flag, come on whats next Lets move on to more important topics that concern our country.

Every Canadian with access to the media knows that our country has lost 4 brave young men...That should be enough...Now it is time for family members, friends and DND to reflect on these losses, to mourn our comrads, and to lay them to rest...All without the media in our faces, without the concerned Canadians needing to see the tears and anguish of those now in mourning.

But your point about families of crime victims isn't really valid either. My point is: there is a right-to-know issue that trumps the families' feelings at a certain point.

What piont is that, and why does the media not use restraint. Should we not allow the family to decide at what piont they want to make a statement, if any at all..

My piont is this why should the Media or Canadians rights to veiw or read news trump over the rights of a family or friends in grief, or pain. What news worthy item could we possiable get from this other than perhaps a statement or action that the family will regret later on.

Or are we saying that the media has every right to violate our rights in the chase for a story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoop:

The cameras were able to get pictures from outside the base.

Not allowing cameras on the tarmac isn't censoring "all coverage".

I know that. I didn't say it was.

Should we censor all coverage ? ie. Should we suppress the information that soldiers were even killed in Afghanistan ? That's what I meant.

No, we shouldn't.

Right to know? I'm not familiar with that. Which section of the charter does that fall under? laugh.gif

How little attention do you want to pay to the family's feelings?

I speak of the right to know what's going on over there, ie. numbers of dead and wounded. Should we suppress that information ? I say no.

There is a reasonable line between that point, and the point of total sensationalism. The government should decide what that point is, and set the protocol.

Army:

Lets move on to more important topics that concern our country.

I agree.

What piont is that, and why does the media not use restraint. Should we not allow the family to decide at what piont they want to make a statement, if any at all..

At the point where people are aware what is happening over there.

My piont is this why should the Media or Canadians rights to veiw or read news trump over the rights of a family or friends in grief, or pain. What news worthy item could we possiable get from this other than perhaps a statement or action that the family will regret later on.

There is a right to know what is happening.

Or are we saying that the media has every right to violate our rights in the chase for a story.

Sometimes they have the right and duty to violate individual privacy to get a story, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Hardner,

Or are we saying that the media has every right to violate our rights in the chase for a story.

Sometimes they have the right and duty to violate individual privacy to get a story, yes.

In an ideal world, violations would only occur when it is in the best interests of the public to do so. However, the media's 'rights and duties' are now to serve Mammon, not 'the good of people'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More likely the central government, being weak and without its own large power base, as yet, would wind up being owned by one or another of the warlords. The warlords would all fight it out, with the taliban supporting one or another, and, quite possibly winding up in charge again. In any event, there would be war and chaos there for some years to come, and this is the perfect place for a terrorist group to find a secure home with lots of potential recruits.

That's more like it. Problem is, it agains assumes a prominent role for the Taliban. What evidence is there that the Taliban is a significant force in Afghanistan? Have the last four years done nothing to weaken thier position? Also: if the place is in a state of war and chaos, it can hardly be a stable place for a terrorist group to set up shop: the stability of the country under the Taliban is what drew Al Qaeda there in the first place: it's a lot harder to organize in the middle of a war zone.

I can't say what strength the Taliban has as compared to the regional warlords. They certainly have fanaticism on their side, and a whole lot of external recruits, principally from Pakistan That makes them some kind of power, and in a multi-sided tribal war one warlord or another would have sworn them in on his side. I think my main point is that the people of Afghanistan would be worse off - though few calling for the removal of foreign troops talk about that. Terrorists of Bin laden's ilk thrive on an unstable environment. Why do you think the Taliban kept him around to begin with? Because he has 10,000 foreign fighters which he placed at their disposal to be used against their many enemies. If they'd been stable and secure they would have had no need of him, and been much less likely to tolerate the trouble he brought down on their heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

August1991:

I'm with Michael on this. Deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan is clearly an issue of concern to us all. The deaths occurred because of our government policies.

Yes the deaths have occured because of government policies, And it effects all Canadians or should. And the government has been very transparent with everything about this incident. What else do Canadians need to see or know...do they need to see the family break down emotionally, do they need to see the tears in the soldiers eyes as they lower the casket. What else do they need, Id like to know just where do we draw the line.

The anti-war, anti-Harper Left wants to publicize these war dead because it feels this will shame and embarrass Harper in the eyes of the Canadian public. The idea is that flags at half-mast for every death, constant photos of returning caskets, the eventual photo of a long line of body bags will make Harper and the Tories unelectable

To have these men used as polictical pawns makes me sick, Where was the Anti-war lobby when young Canadian soldiers were coming home in caskets during UN , or other peace keeping operations, then again where was the media, No where to be seen...Where was the rest of the Canada...Because it was a noble cause "nobody dies peacekeeping in fact peacekeeping is not dangerous". 26 candian soldiers died in Bosina alone, none made this much hoppla...

Where was the Anti-war lobby when better equipment could have saved more of our lives,during these noble operations. where were they when Bosina cost canada 26 of it's soldiers...when crews in Sea kings were dying in seach and rescue missions because equipment was to old...They were not worried about keeping score then. If fact they are the ones that should hang thier heads in shame and we as Canadians should be kicking thier ass to the curb...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Theolinus...

In an ideal world, violations would only occur when it is in the best interests of the public to do so. However, the media's 'rights and duties' are now to serve Mammon, not 'the good of people'.

yes, yes, yes.

You're correct and Mammon needs his four squares a day, so Mammon must be served.

It's a small point - coverage of the bodies landing - and the flag flap is a ages-old political game, and I don't think it matters a damn either way, but the virtuous thread that they will hang on is that the government is embarassed and wants to control the damage.

Just to show that I'm a good sport, and that I truly am the devil's advocate (he hired me on a retainer during the Liberal regime) I'd like to provide an argument for the conservative side, that I don't remember seeing yet:

What exactly has changed recently that has made the war so controversial: is it that a few more deaths have occurred, or is it that the government has changed ? Hmmmmmmmmm ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Hardner:

At the point where people are aware what is happening over there

I agree with you totally, As a soldier i want the public fully aware of whats going on, But i also think that the Avg Canadian knows that already. They've been kept upto date of every detail on this incident. And now it is time to mourn and bury our comrads in peace and quite. without the media, or the rest of Canada watching it happen. In a show of repect...If the family wants the media then they will be invited if the family wants Canada to be thier you'll get a notice to be there.

Sometimes they have the right and duty to violate individual privacy to get a story, yes.

I would agree with you if they were uncovering some evil government plot or uncovering some crimanal plan, but what real news worthy event is going to unfold at a funeral for one of our soldiers. And does the avg Canadian need to see the grief and pain of the families and friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Hardner:

What exactly has changed recently that has made the war so controversial: is it that a few more deaths have occurred, or is it that the government has changed ? Hmmmmmmmmm ?

Canadians are just now waking up to the fact that our military is capable of taking the fight to the enemy not just handing out candy and teddybears..and that "peacekeeping" was a myth.

Every major mission Canada has taken on cost the lives of our soldiers. I think it has alot to do with the media coverage, media is now embedded with the troops where in Bosina they were not.

Lets keep in mind this was a liberal mission, but Yes the change of Government has alot to do with it as well, and the opposition is using that by painting Harper as a "Bush wanna be" all with the hopes in getting reelected..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who planted the bomb that killed these four soldiers?

Beats me. I'm pretty sure you don't know either. Could be Taliban remenants. Could be regional drug lords. Could be somebody who see's resistance to foreign occupation as their duty. The point is I don't know, nor do the people who keep claiming it's the Taliban. Indeed, that particular narrative is a little too white hats/black hats to be grounded in reality.

Karzai has thanked Canada for being in Afghanistan and preventing violent attacks against his government. And sorry BD, the Taliban were a motley group of disorganized, uncivilized, young fanatics. Think what would happen if some young punks with an adolescent racist ideology and access to guns took over a high school. To pursue the analogy, Al Qaeda worked out of a classroom.

You missed an important element: the Taliban, when they began, enjoyed a high level of popular support because of the promise of (relative) stability and their religious beliefs. IMV, popular support would be absolutely vital for the Taliban to reemerge as a significant force. Given the Taliban (whatever is left of it, anyway) is in all likeliehood a lot weake rtoday than it was then and certainly a whole lot less popular, is it anywonder I see the spectre of a resurgent Taliban running the show as groundless fear mongering? (Of course, if the Taliban did make a come back with a significant level of popular support, would we then take sides in a civil war?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a small point - coverage of the bodies landing - and the flag flap is a ages-old political game, and I don't think it matters a damn either way, but the virtuous thread that they will hang on is that the government is embarassed and wants to control the damage.

No, I think that's incorrect. The government has done nothing whatever to be embarrassed about. They didn't even send the troops to Afghanistan. A more accurate statement is that the government supports the mission and supports the troops there. They are aware that support is not as widespread in Canada as they believe it should be. A lot of Canadians don't know what we're doing there (largely out of ignorance) and are afraid that morbid and continuous news coverage designed to dwell on the tragedy and loss will further dampen the enthusiasm of these ignorant and short-sighted Canadians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of Canadians don't know what we're doing there (largely out of ignorance) and are afraid that morbid and continuous news coverage designed to dwell on the tragedy and loss will further dampen the enthusiasm of these ignorant and short-sighted Canadians.

The level of arrogance necessary to believe the only reason people would oppose Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is ignorance is breathtaking. I'll bet many who oppose our involvement there know damn well what's going on. Hell: many probably know more than those who prattle on about "freedom" and "support the troops!"

I can't say what strength the Taliban has as compared to the regional warlords. They certainly have fanaticism on their side, and a whole lot of external recruits, principally from Pakistan That makes them some kind of power, and in a multi-sided tribal war one warlord or another would have sworn them in on his side.

Okay: how many recruits? Where are they now? Where are they being trained? In other words: do you have any evidence of this?

think my main point is that the people of Afghanistan would be worse off - though few calling for the removal of foreign troops talk about that.

Just as few of the "support the troops" type seem to grasp the enormity of the task they've taken on.

Terrorists of Bin laden's ilk thrive on an unstable environment. Why do you think the Taliban kept him around to begin with? Because he has 10,000 foreign fighters which he placed at their disposal to be used against their many enemies. If they'd been stable and secure they would have had no need of him, and been much less likely to tolerate the trouble he brought down on their heads.

bin Laden and Al Qaeda set up shop after the Taliban had consolidated power. While they no doubt appreiciated their help, I don't think they needed it. Again: the Taliban were, in the beginning, a quite popular alternative to continued war and civil strife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...