Media barred from displaying coffins

[Hedley]

The media couldn't care less about the flow to the public, of accurate information. If you think that's the issue, you probably still believe in the tooth fairy and the easter bunny.

The media is outraged because they took it in the pocketbook. The government saying, "Maybe we'll skip this 7 second clip" is like someone saying to you, how about you skip your next paycheque?

It's about money. What else is new?

If anyone here thinks it's a good idea to shove cameras into the people's faces at funerals, well, I can only imagine what else you do for fun in the evening, with a hot fork and a household cat.

[Guido]

The conservative-types on here aren't paying attention, they just keep repeating the same thing. The media weren't in the faces of the grieving folks last time soldiers came back, they were off to the side, out of the way. It's pretty obvious that Harper's move with the media was political and he meant to slip it under the radar while correcting the flag issue.

[Dust Devil]

One family did say they wanted a private ceromony. I think that should be enough in this case. The footage that CTV got was hardly peering over the fence. They had full shots of the crowd the coffins and the aircraft. What more do they need? Shots of peoples faces as they are bawling? I wouldn't want mine plastered all over the news just so the media can up it's ratings. They had one gentleman who lost his son a while back saying that he wanted to greive with the families. Real nice thought! But he does not have the right to such a request. Nor does the media have the right to go anywhere they please.

Just watch the liberal media is going to try and turn this whole war issue around and pin it on the conservatives just like they did with the national debt in the early 90's. Try and tell me that their campaign promise won't be. "vote for us and your sons and daughters will come home!".

[Scuba_Steve]

I've watched most repatriotion cerimonies since they became the norm after the 4 troops were bombed back in 2002, and in every case they always had close ups of the families, saying who they were etc. It was done respectfully, and at a distance, but in all honesty, had it been me I'd rather it be private. But thats me.

Everyone seems to want to connect harper to bush somehow, and at any stretch, lets not forget back int he 90's when troops were killed due to enemy fire in Bosnia it was never mentioned, or glossed over, and poeple were told it was a'training accident' or somethign to that effect. Even in the case of a poor French Vandoo who was struck with a RPG...somehow he got himself killed....then flags were never lowered, and coffins were never seen by the media or anyone outside the family. And no one cared. After 4 troops were bombed accidently in Khandahar the whole story changed, poeple were pissed (rightfully so) and wanted to honour the fallen, a awakening came into the canadian public (better late than never) as to the realities of being in the canadian armed forces. And there was a demand for public ceremony. I was quite amazed by it at the time, being a long serving member of the armed forces by that point. ( I was used to no one 'caring') and politicians being politicians they started the current trend of lowering flags, televising the coffins return, granting unlimited media access etc.

Its not like the whole thing is being covered up for christs sake, they media are being barred from ONE event. Unfortunatly they are the ones who are best at stirring up a shitstorm over it since they are...the media..

Cheers

[Driving Rain]

If anyone here thinks it's a good idea to shove cameras into the people's faces at funerals, well, I can only imagine what else you do for fun in the evening, with a hot fork and a household cat.

The FBI thinks it's a good idea at the funerals for Mafia members.

[Wilbur]

Mellow Pilot, if you never saw the grieving families during prior coverage of returning dead, you weren't watching. Every network has provided almost identical footage on every occasion. A clip of the caskets coming off the airplane, the honour guard and bearers as they carry the casket to the hearse, and then plenty of footage of the weeping widow, kids, and parents.

The decision to keep media away from the arrival ceremony can hardly be described as an exercise in sanitizing bad news. Their departure ceremony from Kandahar was on the news, memorials at their home units were on the news, interviews with commrades and friends were on the news, and their military memorial services will be on the news. Comparing the limits on media access for this one event to Bush's near blanket news coverage prohibition is just plain stupid.

Allowing the families a little privacy when first seeing their loved ones arrive home, and a private funeral and internment is not unreasonable. It's the least we own them considering the sacrifices these families have made on behalf of us and our country.

[mellow_pilot]

What about the family members who couldn't make it to Trenton?

I guess they're home amusing themselves with hot fork and a house cat?

I'll say it again, the MILITARY had a policy in place, the GOVERNMENT changed that policy without consultation.

[Dust Devil]

Mabey we should listen to what the soldiers have to say

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/gilespie_funeral060426.mov

[cyyz]

Every network has provided almost identical footage on every occasion. .

I doubt it... I'm thinking the major networks would keep it tasteful, but what about media groups like "the onion" or "enquirer" or tabloid or second rate media????

It's the "CBC" tax dollars at work, they should have exclusive coverage to these "events."

And atleast in the US they have a company/division/squad/whatever for "media," so maybe if we have the same thing, maybe the soldiers should shoot it and give it out to the media.

[CID]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 60425.html

Family members criticize government

At least one bereaved military family believes the government has made a mistake.

It should be up to the families to decide whether they want reporters present at such ceremonies, said Richard Leger, whose son Marc was killed in Afghanistan four years ago.

"I know, in 2002, it was a great thing for us to have the media there... We wanted to show all Canadians what the cost of their liberty is," he told CBC Newsworld.

"People saying, 'Thank you for the life of Marc' – as a parent that's hard to hear, but knowing what's the reason behind it helps us to move on."

Maureen Burrowes, who is a cousin of Payne, said the government is depriving her of her chance to be part of Tuesday night's ceremony.

"I honestly believed I would see my cousin's return on CBC as I could not be present today," she wrote in an e-mail. "I really feel that our current government has made a very bad decision and voters will remember this in the next election."

"The timing is absolutely horrendous and I would love to know how to get this reversed."

In the United States, the Bush administration has been criticized for banning images of the arrival of flag-draped coffins containing the remains of soldiers killed in Iraq.

White House officials imposed the ban out of worry that such photographs would lower public support for the military campaign.

There are arguments onm both sides. Either way, it isn't an issue for Government to decide. Harper accuses the opposition of "politicizing" the issue. Harper is the one who has politicized it by putting his nose where it doesn't belong.

[Wilbur]

Mellow, do you know the military had a policy in place, or are you assuming? I suggest the former Liberal government saw a potential photo op (to wrongfully make it look like they care about our military people) and told the military what the policy would be. Cretin, Dithers and the other hacks all saw political points to be earned by standing around looking sombre and concerned. To bad the morgue rats weren't as concerned when they sent our troops off to war with Iltis's, Sea Kings, and other antiquated equipment.

I suggest the military would quickly find a solution to meet everyones needs if the the politicians, of all stripes, pissed off and stayed out of it.

[Dust Devil]

I agree that there is arguments on both sides but I think we should err on the side of privacy. If the families want the media around they can do so at their sons and daughters funerals. Therefore they can expose themselves to the media at any time however the families who want privacy have no chance to get theirs back.

[BigB]

Here's an idea. How about we make it a mandatory requirement for each and everyone in the military to, prior to entering a theater of conflict, fill out a directive stating his/her wants/wishes upon return/repatriation in the event of death. Be it choice a) Full media coverage, b) Limited media coverage, c) No media coverage. I think that it would be resonable for the soldier to have a say.

As for the Flag lowering issue, if I were a family member of a soldier who had died in a conflict recently, and the Flag was NOT lowered .....well .....why are these soldiers that have died within the last few years, in the Afghanistan theater, more deserving?

[x-wind]

I agree with the above two posts.

However, I don't think the decision was made for the families..... but maybe Im wrong.

[Dust Devil]

why are these soldiers that have died within the last few years, in the Afghanistan theater, more deserving?

It's not about being more deserving. I don't think anyone conservative or liberal thinks that these men don't deserve to be honored. The difference is the Conservative government isn't about media grandstanding like the Liberals were. Why don't we shut the whole country down when a soldier dies and declare it a national holiday? These men would deserve that too it's just that a line has to be drawn somewhere. I think the best way to honor the fallen is to increase death benifits to the families of the fallen soldiers. Not that any amount of cash could ever make up for the sacrifice these men give but it might make the soldiers feel better that if something happens to them that their families will be looked after. Unforunatly the previous government refused to consider practical policies like that but chose to cheap out by lowering flags every day and trying to fool the public that they we're about standing behing our men and women.

[BigB]

DD,

I agree with you 100% my friend. Perhaps that's my point. When one breaks with tradition, this type of thing happens. The Flag issue would not have been one, had the Liberals not broken with the tradition already estalished.

As for me, if I were the one being repatriated, I would not only want the media to stay away from my greiving family (even from a distance), but I would not expect treatment either above or below those that had fallen before me(read Flag). Don't get me wrong. I have the ultimate respect for every soldier who has fallen. Each is every bit a sacrifice as the other.

It is rather unfortunate though that this issue is on the forefront, antagonized by those who most likely voted for the previous 3 Liberal governments. They showed their support for the CF by voting for a gov't that continually decimated funding.

And now they are crying....."Support our Troops"......man...

[. ._]

Yesterday's edition of the Sudbury Star had a casket right on the front page. And there was an article inside about how the soldiers in Afghaninstan think the media should stay the @#$! out of grieving families' faces.

I see no problem with keeping the media a little further away when the soldiers are repatriated. But an outright ban, like in the States is not the way to go.

I'll bet most Americans don't even know that their soldiers are getting picked off at a rate of a couple a day. This is what Bush wants, and by silencing the US media that's what he's got.
Bush is an asshole.

End rant.

-istp

[MUSKEG]

Why is it that we think all decisions that Leaders make are to increase their popularity. Klien made some hugely unpopular decisions in AB 10 years ago and now AB is the envy of every province in Canada. (No I don't live in AB). With the condition of our Liberal desimated Military, should Canada be attacked we could not protect ourselves. Everyone including Bush hatters would be kisssing his ass and asking for help. He would have every right to tell us to pound sand but I bet the US would be here in a heart beat. Then all the Liberals voters would say they only did it to further the takeover of Canada. Some of you guys are so open minded your brains have fallen out.

[mellow_pilot]

First off, who the hell is going to attack Canada? No one in the world today with the capability has any reason to mount a traditional military invasion of this country.

Actually, Bush wouldn't have 'every right to tell us to pound sand'. Under NATO, NORAD and a couple other mutual defence documents, the United States and Canada share the defence of North America. It is in the best interest of America to fight any aggressor in Canada where there is low popualtion density, rather than with til they enemy enters the US and they have to fight urban battles in thier own cities.

Sorry, I just hate that stupid argument that we depend on the US for military support. It's stupid. It's in the intrest of the US to defend Canada from invasion. Also Canada is far too large to take and hold. We are so spread out and so far from any potential aggressor (except maybe the States if they got hungry for resources, and they have bigger fish to fry) that a military campaign against us would be foolish.

[CID]

Mellow_pilot,

Totally agree.

Grimey, are you going to answer my question? I was serious. What wire tapping and secret arrest programs did the Liberals "bring in"?

[swede]

President Stephen Harper

Oil for one, one for oil? Is he governing for Canada, or just Alberta?
By Murray Dobbin
Published: April 20, 2006


TheTyee.ca
The only thing missing when Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks is an American flag as the backdrop.

A long time admirer of everything American, Harper even included an explicitly pro-American clause in the Reform Party's constitution. He has even begun extending his admiration of American political ideology to an adoption of a presidential political style. The change in style ranges from the relatively benign practice of recognizing visitors in the Commons Gallery (an American, not Canadian practice) to the more serious treatment of his cabinet ministers as if they were appointed lackeys (as US cabinet members are) and not elected representatives. At his news conferences, he has tried to enforce a system where only a very select number of journalists will be allowed to ask him questions. Those deemed "unfriendly" to the regime are effectively silenced.

Those matters of style are troubling, but it is still the substance of the parallels with George Bush that are the most serious. The latest example is on the climate change front. Just as all kinds of dedicated unbelievers are reluctantly getting on the climate change train - Tony Blair, Australia's John Howard, Time magazine, the Pentagon and even George Bush - Harper is determined to take Canada off the train. Why?

The answer might lie in Oilberta, just as George Bush's hatred of Kyoto is rooted in Texas oil fields.

No debate, no accountablity

Harper and his environment minister are on a virtual binge of vengeance against anyone they can punish for even claiming there is a problem. Harper's foolish rant about "the Liberal bureaucracy" during the election is now playing out in policy decisions. The Conservative government, during the same week that it was trumpeting its dedication to accountability and transparency with a 250-page omnibus bill, was quietly axing 15 programs that were aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. No debate, no explanation, no accountability.

It demonstrates what Harper would do with real power if we ever give him a majority.

The most bizarre example of Harper's paranoia, and that of his Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, was the recent decision preventing an Environment Canada scientist from launching a novel about global warming. According to the Canadian Press, the scientist, Mark Tushingham, was ordered not to appear at the National Press Club talk about his book Hotter than Hell - an account of the possible future impact of global warming.

A spokesman for Minister Ambrose told the media that Mr. Tushingham was ordered not to appear at his book launch because he was described in the news release as an Environment Canada scientist "and it was assumed that he would be representing the position of the department." Minister Ambrose apparently assumed that Canadians (the couple of hundred who might have heard about it) are so dense that they would think the government now writes and publishes fiction.

The real Harper?

There is in this vendetta a reminder of who Stephen Harper really is. The mask has dropped, if just for a moment, from the man we know as viscerally hostile to any kind of activist government, contemptuous of three generations of Canadian nation-building and, perhaps, most important in this particular instance, a man who spent much of his political life defending the influence of corporate money in politics.

As for his paranoia about the "Liberal" bureaucracy, Harper's response to questions about the book controversy seem intended to declare that the bureaucracy is now Conservative. "I obviously not only hope, but expect, that all elements of the bureaucracy will be working with us to achieve our objectives." Would those objectives include denying climate change?

It should come as no surprise that Mr. Harper's loyalty to corporations should be expressed so brazenly to the oil industry that is the ruler of Alberta politics, start-up financier of the Reform Party and key to Harper's political base. Both Prime Minister Harper and President George Bush are loyal defenders of the richest and most reactionary corporate sectors in their respective countries. Both are absolutely determined to defend the oil and gas industry against any conceivable damage from efforts to slow the ravages of global warming. Reports suggest that Bush was delighted with Harper's visit to Afghanistan. No doubt the oil industry was, too, as they have no doubts about the geo-politics of the mission there.

It is especially revealing that this determination should be demonstrated so crassly during the same week that one of the most powerful and convincing books yet written on climate change was being promoted by its author in Canada. The Weather Makers: How We Are Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth, by Australian author Tim Flannery, presents a relentless array of evidence that climate change is already here. Tony Blair has gone out his way to praise the book.

In contrast, Harper went to the trouble of sabotaging a very low-key publishing event - an almost pathological dedication to denying climate change. But the more disturbing strategy is avoiding the actual science. This hear-no-evil, see-no-evil approach is alive and well in Harper's troubled mind. One of the fifteen programs axed or suspended by the government is the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation and Research Network (C-CIARN), tasked with trying to anticipate the future impacts of climate change on Canada and help devise strategies to adapt to them.

Stephen Harper may be right in assuming that Canadians don't want another election any time soon. But governing as if he has a majority is a high risk strategy. Canadians did not vote to see government power used to carry out a mandate written by the oil patch in the interests of a single province. If they conclude that the old Stephen Harper is the real Stephen Harper, they won't complain for a minute about going back to the polls.

Murray Dobbin writes his State of the Nation column twice monthly