# No Media at Repatriation of Fallen



## The Bread Guy (24 Apr 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409).

http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060424/n0424111A.html

*Media to be barred from covering repatriation of Canadian soldiers' remains * 

''OTTAWA (CP) - Media will be barred from the airfield when the plane carrying the remains of four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan lands at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Ont. 

Miltary sources say reporters will not be be allowed to cover the repatriation of the remains when the aircraft lands at the base Tuesday evening. 

In the past, the media have been invited to cover the arrival of the remains of soldiers who have fallen overseas. 

On April 1 the media covered the repatriation of the remains of Pte. Robert Costall, an Edmonton-based soldier who was killed in a firefight with Taliban insurgents near Kandahar. 

Military sources would not say why the decision was made, but that a news release was to be issued by the Department of National Defence Monday evening. 

Department of Defence officials could not immediately be reached for comment. ''

No statement found on DND web page or via CNW as of 1840EDT...

So, is this going to be a one-off, or the start of a new policy?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Apr 2006)

Found supporting info here http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060416/flag_afghanistan__060424/20060424?hub=TopStories.

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409).

Media barred from covering soldiers' return
Updated Mon. Apr. 24 2006 6:44 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The media will be barred from the airfield at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Ont., when a plane carrying the remains of four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan lands on Tuesday evening.

In the past, television and print media have been invited to cover the arrival of the remains of Canadian soldiers who have fallen overseas.

But sources told CTV News that reporters will not be allowed to cover the repatriation of the remains when the aircraft lands at the base. 

Military sources would not say why the decision was made. But a news release is expected to be issued by the Department of National Defence Monday evening.

CTV's chief political correspondent, Craig Oliver, said the government will likely say their decision was made in part to protect the privacy of the families. 

But Oliver added it appears the Conservative government is concerned that with the mounting casualties in Afghanistan, the mission is losing the battle for public opinion.

"(The government) is afraid that Canadians, seeing the bodies, seeing the coffins, that the images are so strong it's turning people off on the mission," said Oliver.

"This is very much in keeping with the decision by the George Bush White House to do the same thing in Washington, about the bodies of American servicemen coming back from Iraq."

In 2003, the Bush administration banned media from entering the central military morgue at Dover, in Delaware, where soldiers killed in Iraq are received. 

"There won't be any video shown to Canadians of the bodies being returned or the families," said Oliver.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is not expected to travel to CFB Trenton to meet the coffins when they land in Canada. The Globe and  Mail reports that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Gen. Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, will likely be there.

In April 2002, then-prime minister Jean Chretien, the defence minister and chief of the defence staff attended a ceremony at Trenton after four soldiers were killed in Afghanistan that month.

Flag decision

The news comes on the same day that O'Connor defended a new policy not to lower flags on government buildings to half-mast every time a Canadian soldier is killed.

In a Monday letter to The Globe and Mail newspaper, O'Connor said the newly elected Conservative government is returning to a policy where the flag on the Peace Tower is only lowered on one day a year -- Remembrance Day.

"The previous Liberal government broke with this long-standing tradition that confidently brought Canada through its wartime history and instead decided on an ad-hoc basis to lowering the flag of the Peace Tower," he wrote.

"As Minister of National Defence, I can tell you that this adhockery unfairly distinguished some of those who died in Afghanistan from those who have died in current and previous operations. 

"Lowering the Peace Tower's flag on November 11th ensures that all of Canada's fallen heroes are justly honoured."

In the event that a soldier dies in combat, flags will be put at half-mast within the operational base, the home base of the member and the National Defence Headquarters from the day of death until sunset on the day of the funeral.

Also, all flags within the service (Navy, Army, or Air Force) of the member will be half-masted from sunrise to sunset on the day of the funeral, the letter says.

The change in flag protocol comes as the bodies of four Canadian soldiers begin their journey home.

Cpl. Randy Payne, Cpl. Matthew Dinning, Bombardier Myles Mansell and Lieut. William Turner were killed in a roadside bomb attack in Afghanistan over the weekend.

The latest attack on Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan will lead to further debate on extending the mission, Liberal Defence Critic Ujjal Dosanjh told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.

"Canadian public opinion is already divided," Dosanjh said. "There's no question in my mind that as more casualties continue to happen, Canadians will increasingly ask more questions. 

"It's appropriate for Canadians to ask questions -- they always have. They support our troops. We support our troops. Despite that, there might be questions and we as politicians need to be ready to answer them."

Meanwhile, the mayor of Toronto has made a decision to lower the flag atop Toronto City Hall, beginning Tuesday, to half-mast in honour of the four Canadian soldiers.

One of the soldiers, Cpl. Matthew Dinning, was from the Toronto area.

Flags have been lowered at the soldiers' home bases and at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. 

Canadian flags outside post offices in Edmonton are also at half-mast -- Lieut. Bill Turner was a part-time army reservist who worked in that city as a letter carrier.

"It is important because (Turner) was one of our members,'' Ramon Antipas, president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers local, told The Canadian Press. "He truly believed in the mission. This is in recognition for what he was doing."

A total of 15 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died since 2002, when Canada first became involved in Afghanistan following the ouster of the hard-line Taliban regime.


<EDITED>
Fixed syntax in first line as indicated


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Apr 2006)

NF Sapper - Thx!

I see the media is dragging in the flag issue, too.  Heard a CBC Newsworld report talking about the half-staffing being done like the USA.

Here we go....


----------



## Trinity (24 Apr 2006)

What bothers me is the media seems to think they have a *right *to be there.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Apr 2006)

This may be a decision made by someone at CFB Trenton.  It would confirm a story told to me by a friend who remustered Firefighter and was posted there.  It would fall into line with a decision made in parliament not to constantly fly the flag at half mast, which was the policy in Trenton in the very recent past.  But again, it is all speculation on everyones' part and 'another story' for the Liberal Press to print knocking the Conservatives.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Apr 2006)

No problem, but interestingly can't find this story on CBC.ca


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Apr 2006)

I'm surprised CBC hasn't posted the information tout suite....

As for the media's "right" to be there, yer damned if you do (media get to blow it up and hype the story), and yer damned if you don't (the media talk about "censorship", and go all papparazzo on the event).  

Personally, as long as it's respectful (that's what ground rules for attendance at events are for), I'm OK with media being there.  We complain if the media doesn't cover the military, so when they do, we have to live with the nasty as well as the good.

Wonder if the gov't (bureaucracy) decided, the gov't (politicians) decided, or the families requested it - or a bit of all of the above?  Then again, I guess in a liberal democracy, the buck always stops with the folks we elected.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Apr 2006)

Maybe they are waiting for confirmation from the Crystal Palace?


----------



## George Wallace (24 Apr 2006)

Nfld_Sapper said:
			
		

> Maybe they are waiting for confirmation from the Crystal Palace?



The Crystal Palace is in Visoko........matter of fact..... they are now digging up the hills there looking for pyramids.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Apr 2006)

haha  :rofl: :cheers:


----------



## George Wallace (24 Apr 2006)

I was serious.



As to why the press aren't allowed onto the Base in Trenton, it could have been a decision made at any level.  It could have been the Base Commander.  It could have been the Base Admin Officer on a request from the AMU.  It could have been Air Transport Command.  It could have been the Family of one of the Fallen.  It could have been the CDS.   It could have been the Minister.  It could have been the VCDS.  It could have been the janitor who may have answered a phone call from CBC in error.  Who knows.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Apr 2006)

It is the policy of DoD to not allow the media to photograph the return of our fallen servicemen and women, perhaps Canada is just following suit. At Dover we dont have the families present , but the families may well be present at Trenton and this policy will afford them to grieve without being on national TV. This may also have arisen from previous ceremonies and the families suggested that in future the media not be present.


----------



## buckahed (24 Apr 2006)

All day I saw pictures of the coffins in transit and then I get to hear CTV proclaiming Harper is Bush lite and he's trying to hide the coffins.

they actually used the phrase "Canada's Iraq"........


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Apr 2006)

Rant on:

Once again, I'm fed up and disgusted with the media and their "spinning" of non-issues into something more.  Yet again, TV tonight is awash with "Conservatives won't lower the flag" stories - presented with no background and with plenty of people saying what an "insult" it is to soldiers.  They have no idea what soldiers think of this issue, yet are ready to jump to conclusions in an effort to speak for us.

To the media reading this (and I have no doubt you are):  how much is enough?  You have plenty of coverage of the coffins being put on the plane and I have no doubt you'll have plenty of the funerals - invited or not.  Get a grip.  We are the Army; it is a sad reality that part of our job is to take casualties on behalf of Canadians and our elected political masters - of whatever stripe.  Don't denegrate that sacrifice with an unseemly and politically motivated display of spin designed to promote controversy and generate ratings.  "Canada's Iraq" indeed...

Rant off.


----------



## armyvern (24 Apr 2006)

Why is this "change" in "policy" a media issue?? It shouldn't be.

The current governing party is simply reverting "policy" back to it's pre-Afghanistan protocol.

We have suffered the loss of other serving personnel on other missions since 2003, and the flag on the Peace Tower was not lowered for them, nor were their Ramp Ceremonies covered by the national media. Upon my departure from the gulf in 2003, I was honoured to accompany a deceased soldier's return home from Bosnia. Upon our arrival in Trenton...there was no media... and no flag lowered on the Peace Tower although mention of his passing did make the news.

The death of a soldier serving his or her country is *always* a sombre occasion regardless of the circumstances, either by accident or intentional, and regardless of the location of it's occurrence, be it domestic or deployed operations. *All* these sacrifices were first and foremost made by volunteers, while serving their beloved country of Canada. These deaths are always treated respectfully and honourably by the Military and are awarded the very same significance and ceremonies regardless of where or how the death occurred. Why must the media feign to differentiate when we don't? 

Let us honour our fallen in our traditional way by continuing to lower our flags on November 11th, just as we continue to honour those brave fallen from our Military generations previous, who have passed on the torch to us to continue to uphold. Those brave souls before us were not 'honoured' with the Peace Tower flag at half mast for years upon end; therefore the current government is not "changing policy" it is simply giving us back our traditions. 

If the media wishes to 'investigate and cause some action" regarding what they feel is an insult to the Military fallen, perhaps there is a better way to go about it...
Better to be constructive and start a movement to make Remembrance Day, November 11th, the *National Holiday* of Remembrance it should be. Now that would be something.


----------



## Haggis (24 Apr 2006)

Here's a thought for you media types.

Instead of asking Joe and Jane Canadian, the local "used-to-be-in-power" Liberal backbencher, or some left wing university students who can't find Kanadahar on a map, why not ask *US*, the serving members of the CF, how we'd like to be remembered.

After all, it's our memories you claim are being disgraced in your haste to trample on tradition..


----------



## ladybugmabj (24 Apr 2006)

I fully understand the reasoning behind the media being banned. I watched with tears in my eyes, sitting next to my husband when Pte. Costall came home. I have watched this scene over and over again, and each time it gets harder and harder. It was hard to watch Mrs. Costall say her good bye's to her husband with my husband safely sitting beside me. Yes, he's military, preparing for his 3rd tour to Afghanistan in August. I saw him off in August 2003, and January, 2005. I've watched repatriation ceremonies on tv of Sgt. Short, Cpl. Beerenfenger (whom my husband worked with), and Cpl. Murphy (but not Pte. Johnston, who was killed on leave in Africa when he was over in Bosnia...why, because, maybe he wasn't newsworthy enough?? Afterall, it was on holidays, not the sensational stories of Afghanistan).  I have watched all these ceremonies with tears and sorrow for the families, knowing my husband was safe in camp and soon to return home to myself and our two boys. 
  Yes, I would watch the repatriation ceremony if it was to be broadcast, because as a military wife, reality, to me is the best lesson learned. I can't think that something bad will happen to my husband, I just can't think that way. We can't fool ourselves that its all rosey and safe over there, because as we've seen 15 times now, it's not!  My prayers go out to the families of Cpl. Dinning, Lt. Turner, Cpl. Payne and Bombadier Mansell. The CF family and extended family shares your grief and pain.


----------



## military granny (24 Apr 2006)

Ladies and Gentlemen
*In my own personal opinion*. I am glad the military banned the media from CFB Trenton, most of the time it is the first time they see the families and after that point they( the media) think they are fair game. The media have absolutely no respect for the families of the deceased or hurt soldiers or their families. We have seen this time and time again, the accident that took Paul and Tim's lives and left seven other soldiers hurt. Pvt. Costall, Pvt Salikin,MCPL Franklin etc...etc...etc.. These families deserve their privacy. I do and will say they are vultures. So if the government or families or who ever decided to keep the vultures at bay I say GOOD FOR THEM !!


----------



## Bart Nikodem (25 Apr 2006)

> Ladies and Gentlemen
> In my own personal opinion. I am glad the military banned the media from CFB Trenton, most of the time it is the first time they see the families and after that point they( the media) think they are fair game. The media have absolutely no respect for the families of the deceased or hurt soldiers or their families. We have seen this time and time again, the accident that took Paul and Tim's lives and left seven other soldiers hurt. Pvt. Costall, Pvt Salikin,MCPL Franklin etc...etc...etc.. These families deserve their privacy. I do and will say they are vultures. So if the government or families or who ever decided to keep the vultures at bay I say GOOD FOR THEM !!


Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.  
Seriously, I think we need to be careful not to paint "the media" with too broad a brush. I work in Pte. Costall's home town and I found the home town paper's coverage of his memorial service tasteful and reserved. As well, from speaking to people who attended the service, the treatment "the media" gave his family was dignified and respectful.

To me all this edict prevents is a few seconds of grainy footage of caskets coming off a plane, filmed from behind a chain link fence. To ban that amount of coverage just seems to me to be about the optics of caskets coming off a plane.
All the best,
Bart


----------



## jc5778 (25 Apr 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Here's a thought for you media types.
> 
> Instead of asking Joe and Jane Canadian, the local "used-to-be-in-power" Liberal backbencher, or some left wing university students who can't find Kanadahar on a map, why not ask *US*, the serving members of the CF, how we'd like to be remembered.
> 
> After all, it's our memories you claim are being disgraced in your haste to trample on tradition..



That is bang-on my friend.  I could not have said it anybetter myself.  Also quick point to non-serving types, if you start to question the mission what does that say to the families of the fallen. They died for nothing?  Those questions should be asked well after the mission.


----------



## muffin (25 Apr 2006)

I listened all morning as our local radio station complained about the media ban and how it was thier right to watch the return because that was how they show support....   :

The interesting thing was that as most other sources they failed to attempt to understand why the ban was put in place and used it as another dig at the conservative government. 

I found it interesting that one announcer said she would be suprised if many of the CF members supported the ban / flag decisions.... so I sent them this forum as a tool for enlightenment... and if they are reading it now (and I sincerly hope they take the time to give it a read) I hope this helps them see the "other side of the argument" a little clearer. 

Quite frankly, if I had to take my children to Trenton to see thier father brought home in a flag drapped coffin, I would not want it broadcast to the nation. There will be memorials etc for this type of community/national mourning.

EDIT: I recieved the following from one of the DJ's:
_
Thanks so much for sending this - I think it is difficult for civillians,
myself included, to understand.

I read what retired General Lewis MacKenzie wrote in the Globe shortly after
our conversation on the air and have a bit better understanding of the
situation.

Thank you again - we need feedback._

- I want to thank them publicly for keeping an open mind  

SEND EDIT:  Clairifcation sent to me by Radio Station DJ mentioned in my statement:

_Thanks for the e-mail. First, I would like to clarify the quote attributed
to me that you refer to in your e-mail.  What I actually said was that I
would be shocked if ALL military personnel agreed with the caller we had
off-air who said we shouldn't lower the flag on the Peace Tower.  It was not
in reference to the banning of the media's presence at the arrival of the
fallen soldiers at Trenton.

I absolutely DO understand both sides when it comes to the aforementioned
media ban - especially if that ban comes at the request of the families.
With that said, as a member of the media but more importantly as a member of
a democratic society (the very thing we are trying to defend in places like
Afghanistan) I believe in the absolute right of the people of this nation to
not be subjected to secrecy of any sort when it comes to our government and
/ or military operations UNLESS it is a matter of national defence.
Democracy entails maintaining an open book policy so to speak. And as
mentioned in one of the postings on the link you provided, you can't have
your cake and eat it too.  The same people who cry fowl that the military in
this country doesn't receive enough media coverage are perhaps the same
people who are now crying fowl at the media's right to cover such an event. 

And with that being said, let me go on to point out that in the media
coverage of such past events that I have seen, it has been done tastefully
and with the utmost respect to the fallen soldiers and their families.  And
for me that is the bottom line, this all comes down to respect and paying
respects to a young man or woman who has made the ultimate sacrifice in
defending my right to a free society._


----------



## muffin (25 Apr 2006)

I was just sent a good article from the Globe and Mail showing both sides of the debate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060425.wxflags25/EmailBNStory/National/home


Ottawa fails fallen soldiers, critics say
Media will not be allowed on military base to cover return home of soldiers' bodies

BILL CURRY

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The media will be banned from CFB Trenton today when the bodies of four Canadian soldiers killed over the weekend in Afghanistan return home.

The decision to mirror a practice that is controversial in the United States follows an announcement on Sunday that the flag on the Peace Tower will not be flown at half-mast to mark the deaths.

The two events have some in opposition accusing the Conservative government of a deliberate attempt to limit public knowledge of the human cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor issued a statement yesterday confirming the change, saying the arrival of the soldiers' bodies is a private event for the grieving families.

The minister noted that Canadian media in Afghanistan were allowed to cover a ceremony yesterday in which the soldiers' coffins were loaded onto a military plane.

"I have made the most appropriate decision during this emotional time for the families, that the media will not be present [today]," said a defence official who read the statement from the minister.

"There is a time to mourn and we want to respect the privacy needs of the grieving families. The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces."

A spokesman for the minister confirmed that the media ban will also apply in any future deaths of soldiers.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh called the media ban "absolutely un-Canadian" and "absolutely manipulative."

"It's extremely disturbing that this government would take a page out of [U.S. President George] Bush's modus operandi," Mr. Dosanjh said.

The Liberal MP said the media ban, coupled with the new flag policy, shows the Conservatives are trying to play down negative images of war so as not to lose public support.

"For the life of me, I can't imagine any other reason," he said.

The debate over the flag will take a deeply personal turn this afternoon when the Liberals read into the parliamentary record a letter sent more than two weeks ago by Lincoln Dinning calling for the flag on the Peace Tower to fly at half-mast to honour soldiers who die in the line of duty.

Mr. Dinning's son, Corporal Matthew Dinning, was one of four soldiers killed on Saturday in a roadside explosion.

The other soldiers were Bombardier Myles Mansell, Corporal Randy Payne and Lieutenant William Turner.

Liberal MP Paul Steckle received the letter, and said his party intends to move a motion that would honour the father's wishes regarding the flag.

Mr. O'Connor explained over the weekend that the government will lower the flag on the Peace Tower for Remembrance Day, but individual deaths will be honoured with half-mast flags at defence headquarters and within the service of the deceased, be it navy, army or air force.

Yesterday, the government of Alberta and Toronto City Hall both lowered their flags in honour of the soldiers.

The minister argued that the federal government is returning to an earlier practice and blamed the previous Liberal government for breaking with that tradition in favour of a policy that "unfairly distinguished some of those who died in Afghanistan from those who have died in current and previous operations."

However, not only the Liberals supported lowering the Peace Tower flag to honour previous military deaths.

On Oct. 7, 2004, after submariner Lieutenant Chris Saunders died in a fire on HMCS Chicoutimi, Conservative MP James Moore put forward a motion calling for flags on all government buildings to be flown at half-mast.

The motion was passed unanimously.

Veterans groups and the Bloc Québécois support the Conservative government's position yesterday not to fly the Peace Tower flag at half-mast when soldiers die.

New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer criticized Mr. O'Connor for chastising others when his party also pushed for the Peace Tower flag to be lowered.

"It's Mr. O'Connor not being briefed or not understanding the depth of what he is saying. The reality is, it was the Conservatives under James Moore," he said. "We have four soldiers who were killed and [people] don't want to see politicians carping over this issue. It should just be a matter of fact and get it done."

South of the border, U.S. President George W. Bush invoked the ban on media coverage of returning coffins in 2003 on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.

Since then, a few photos have emerged in the U.S. media through access-to-information requests, but the dead soldiers remain unidentified.

According to media reports, the U.S. ban was inspired by current Vice-President Dick Cheney in 1991 when he was defence secretary to former president George H.W. Bush. A ban was invoked at that time after U.S. television networks showed split-screen images of the president and returning coffins.

The ban was eased under Bill Clinton's administration and for the first two years of George W. Bush's administration.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (25 Apr 2006)

muffin said:
			
		

> Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh called the media ban "absolutely un-Canadian" and "absolutely manipulative."
> 
> "It's extremely disturbing that this government would take a page out of [U.S. President George] Bush's modus operandi," Mr. Dosanjh said.
> 
> ...



I guess respecting the families right to morn in private is "un-Canadian".......



> "I have made the most appropriate decision during this emotional time for the families, that the media will not be present [today]," said a defence official who read the statement from the minister.
> 
> "There is a time to mourn and we want to respect the privacy needs of the grieving families. The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces."
> 
> A spokesman for the minister confirmed that the media ban will also apply in any future deaths of soldiers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2006)

Muffin - well done!  In a perfect world, every one of us planting one seed could help education (or am I WAY too naive about media in spite of issues I've had with some in the past?)

I'm all for the mission, and I'm all for the troops, but I'm going to play the devil's advocate here (risking an online kick in the 'nads), but how about this:

The Minister is quoted saying:  ""I have made the most appropriate decision during this most emotional time for the families ... The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces." 

If that's the case, why not give families the option?  I'm going to guess that there may be some families who *WANT* the public to know about the sacrifice their loved one made.  Also, there's a case to be made that a service member killed in service:  
1)  is making a sacrifice not just for his/her family, but for Canada as a whole, and
2)  is not just a tragedy for the family, friends, and colleagues left behind, but for Canada as a whole.

Given that, isn't there a way to balance the need for privacy and respect with the need to show Canada that, "this is the cost of doing business as a member of the CF, and we're willing to pay that price".  Why not make it a family decision?  If there's more than one family involved, if even one family says "no", then it's no for everybody.  

Also, what's to stop the organizers from having the families meet the coffins, say, in a hangar away from the public if that's what they choose?  That way, the media get their pictures of the fallen coming off the plane and into a more private space, while protecting the families rom having to grieve in public if that's not what they want to do.

I notice the following in the Ottawa Citizen coverage:  "The unprecedented decision surprised the Defence Department -- including Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff.   They were only informed of the change in procedure on Sunday by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor."  I'd be happy to hear from anyone who may have heard anything about the process - when I read this, I read that the uniform side (at least those talking to the Minister or DM, anyway) may not have had a problem with status quo, but that the political side decided.  Also, I notice there's nothing about this latest statement posted on the CF web page (when I checked 0856EDT) - ???? Again, I stand to be corrected, but I'm just wondering.


----------



## Chimo (25 Apr 2006)

I see once again our PAO branch is no where to be heard from. I hate their sit on the fence, never correct anything attitude. Why can't they provide accurate and timely information that serves the military to the media? In my opinion their job is to support us in our mission of defending Canada at home and abroad.

I suggest they should be the point of contact on "how the military" feels about the flag and ramp ceremony issues.


----------



## Infantry_wannabe (25 Apr 2006)

I don't have an issue with the flag not being lowered. As unfortunate as it is, there are too many casualties now for that to be practical. It would be nice, but I understand the probable reasoning. It's obviously going to be a long commitment with more casualties. I'm sure the government wants to be able to appear that it is business as usual when a soldier is killed. It is sad, but it is also war. I don't like it, but I understand it.

What I do have an issue with is not showing the pictures of the caskets coming home. If that decision was made genuinely out of concern for families or at their request, then I'd say the media can shove it. But, it does seem to me to be like the decision by the US government not to show dead American soldiers coming home from Iraq. I don't like anything that smells like a cover-up of what is actually happening. Let's not make some of the same mistakes that the US has made. Let's allow the media to report the full consequences of the war, without trying to sanitize it any more than necessary.

The argument could be made that the public isn't informed enough to see the truth of war. That may be true, but if it is what does it mean to live in a democracy then? The people need to be informed. Besides, is this really helping us to convince the Canadian public of the worth of the cause in Afghanistan? I think the negative impression given by the belief that the government is trying to hide the truth would have more effect than would showing some clips of soldiers' caskets. I think this hurts our war effort rather than helps it.

I think the main reasons the Canadian public (as opposed to the professional protester crowd) is skeptical of the Afghanistan mission are
first of all ignorance, and second of all the complete distrust of the Bush administration and their launching and fighting of the Iraq war. Afghanistan unfortunately is tainted by that experience in the eyes of many people. I think hiding the caskets from the public adds further to both of these concerns. Not only does it look like the PM is following a Bush administration policy but he is hiding the sacrifices that these good people have made for their countries.

I don't think, when Canadians feel there is a good cause, that they will shrink from pain and sacrifice. The professional protester will, but the majority will not. They just need to be convinced of the cause. In my opinion, unless it is truly out of respect for the families, the decision to bar the media from showing caskets arriving home is not helping our cause. If true, that would be a shame. This mission is very important, and very right.

But this is just the opinion of a former reserve Private and current civy who wanted to offer an alternative viewpoint. If the families of the soldiers want the media barred and the flag raised then I think that opinion should stand. It is their opinions that really matter in this issue. Anyone know what they have to say?


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2006)

Wannabe - here's how at least one family member feels, according to the Canadian Press:
http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060424/n0424127A.html

'' Just two weeks ago, Lincoln Dinning wrote Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking that federal flags be flown at half-mast in the event of future combat deaths.  That bit of civic lobbying became cruelly prescient - and emotional grist for a growing debate - when the Wingham, Ont., policeman's son, Cpl. Matt Dinning, became one of four Canadian soldiers killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan on the weekend. In the aftermath, the Conservative government has invoked a return to military protocol and refused to lower the Maple Leaf on Parliament Hill. ''

Chimo - *VERY * good point, although like any other federal gov't agency/dep't, it's the politicians who (eventually) have the final say.  I'm guessing a lot of PAO staff are often gritting their teeth as much as you and the others here, but like all other members of the military, they're there to follow orders.

At least in a democracy, we have the option of changing who's giving the orders via ballot once in a while if we're not happy with them....


----------



## Bobbyoreo (25 Apr 2006)

IMHO This should only be for the families and it should be up to them. Its hard enough to deal with this once but to have to go home as a family member and watch it on late night news is like reliving it over and over. I don't have any faith in the Media..they always change things around to suit themselves.


----------



## Springroll (25 Apr 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Also, what's to stop the organizers from having the families meet the coffins, say, in a hangar away from the public if that's what they choose?  That way, the media get their pictures of the fallen coming off the plane and into a more private space, while protecting the families rom having to grieve in public if that's not what they want to do.



IIRC, they did that very thing for LT Chris Saunders when he was brought back to Halifax.
What I do not like seeing is the media zooming in on the faces of the family members. 
I feel that is truly tasteless.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2006)

Springroll - didn't realize that - thx!

In the words of the famous BritCom "Yes, Minister":  '' "This would create a dangerous precedent". Translation: "If we do the right thing now, we might have to do the right thing again next time". ''


----------



## camochick (25 Apr 2006)

I am the spouse of someone in Afghanistan right now and I am glad that they are not letting the media at the coming home ceremony. Being in the military community you hear alot of stories and word is that they hounded poor Mrs. Costall so much she had to be removed from her PMQ. If it's true I think it's sick.

 If god forbid something happened to my husband I would have words for those who choose to stuff a camera in my face without my consent. Its a rough time right now for everyone in the military community and the last thing anyone needs is the media making a big deal about not being able to film the poor families in their darkest hour. It's sick that they somehow think this is a right . The government isnt hiding the fact that soldiers are dead, they are trying to help the families grieve with a little peace and quiet. If the families want to talk to the media then they should do so.

As for the flag flying, I have no issue with it not being flown half mast. What happens if we start having casualties a few times a week. Should we keep the flag lowered all the time. It makes me wonder if those crying fowl even attend ceremonies on rememberance day, because while I am standing for the parade  I see a heck of alot of people going into the mall. I also see alot of people without poppies on their jackets, poppies on their jackets in july, work places that dont allow for people to have a moment of silence etc. It seems like alot of people are jumping on the band wagon about the flag thing, when perhaps they should direct their efforts towards our veterans and our legions who right now are suffering.


----------



## Pea (25 Apr 2006)

Camo.. awesome post! I couldn't have said any of that better.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2006)

If families are in *ANY* way hounded by media, then PAO's should just say (or be allowed to say):  "Listen, this person is being subject to WAY too much intrusion, and if media outlets don't cut it out and give them some privacy, then you'll ALL be cut off."

BTW, in case it's not clear, I do support the mission, I think about those fallen, those injured, those still at their posts, and those anxiously awaiting a loved one's return.  Good to see firmly put views all around...

I'm off this means for a while (off on holidays), but feel free to diss me as you see fit  

Take care, all...


----------



## military granny (25 Apr 2006)

Camo
Great post. I also have a young man there only difference is its my son. And when I said the media are vultures earlier in this thread it was from personal experience. Leave the families to grieve on their terms, the rest of Canadian citizens can, I'm sure, grieve for these families and soldiers without the media plastering it all over the news for two or three days.


----------



## parkie (25 Apr 2006)

I have witnessed the most tasteless things on the news of late, Families of soldiers, Families of fallen RCMP, coming out of churches and memorial services, in the depths of their anguish and in the midst of their mourning their loved one’s. Well! There are the cameras catching every emotion, to publish it over the nation.And for what! So someone can sit at home and say ‘Geez !Look at that,She must have really loved him!eh!’
 Has we speak; news agencies are showing the explosion that took these brave men’s lives.
How utterly tasteless.
 I myself do not want to know how these brave lads passed. I would much prefer to know how they LIVED, but that wouldn’t sell probably, would it!
 Why in the world do we need to see their remains coming home, because death sells, and the media will squeeze every drop that they can from it? Knowing they died for me and mine, Is enough for me! The rest is none of my business!
  My two cents, on the flag, leave it up! They served it at full mast! Remember them at full  Mast, Remember them how they served!
                                                                               Thank you. parkie


----------



## Big Foot (25 Apr 2006)

Very well said, Parkie. I agree with what you have said.


----------



## army girl/army wife (25 Apr 2006)

Ok I don't post much but this issue really %$%^)_! pissed me off this morning on the way to work. It was on our local radio station all morning. I am a militatry member, spouse and have  family member's in or retired from the military. None of my family think the flag should be at half mast at the Peace Tower. It is only suppossed to be at half mast on Nov 11.
  That has been in affect for 60 to 80 yrs I believe. It was not flown at half mast when a Canadian soldier died in Korea, or anytime for that matter until the Liberals decided to change the policy. Why should it be any different now? My grandfather was explaining this to me last night, as he was in Korea. He said "the flag never flew at half mast for them, that it wasn't suppossed to, so what gives the *&%^#$@ reporters the right to question it now" He is really upset at the reporters about the fuss they're making.
  And as for media being at the airport when the soldiers are repatriated, they have no right to say that they should be there. I for one, would not want them there if that was my husband, or my brother, or a friend being repatriated. My grief is my personal business, not something to be flashed on the 5 O Clock news about the grieving family, so a paper can sell more copies, or a news station gets more viewers. 
  They're frigging leeches on society, every last media outlet.

Ok I'll end my rant now.


----------



## GAP (25 Apr 2006)

When you lose a family member it is hard to deal with. All the conflicting emotions are there and it is a vulnerable time for those involved. The last thing you want is someone interpreting your body and facial reactions, nor asking about your feelings at that moment. 

Leave them alone.


----------



## COBRA-6 (25 Apr 2006)

military granny said:
			
		

> And when I said the media are vultures earlier in this thread it was from personal experience.



I prefer the term "scavengers of human misery"...


----------



## probum non poenitet (25 Apr 2006)

Camochick,
yes Pte Costall's widow was hounded out of her PMQ by some media here acting way beyond the pale. And yes, they got a spanking.

Some media have integrity and professionalism. Some don't.
Some are fine people, some are self-promoting paycheque-to-paycheque losers trying to make a name.

The media learn that they tend to get more flies with honey than with vinegar. The army can and will throw reporters off DND property if they don't play with in the grounds of good taste.

That doesn't mean we can muzzle them if we don't like what they say. It is irritating as hell, but the price of democracy. It's sure better than the alternative.
Bear in mind some families find comfort with media attention, some hate it, it seems about 50/50.

Unfortunately, many if not most of the media are not in the noble pursuit of the truth. They are in the meritricious pursuit of the dollar.
Because of the huge amount of competition between radio, print, TV, you have to get there "th' fastest with th' mostest" to get ahead in the media world.
Truth, accuracy, moral stand, -- not so important. The shiniest and quickest story is. Wake up the widow and get her on for 11 o'clock.

Also, most media don't want to be pereceived as being "in the army's pocket." 
The last time we were in a major war (Korea in my opinion), it was a very different culture. If you deliberately undercut your army, you were seen as a traitor, not as a counter-culture hero.
Tempus freakin' fugit.

But whatever cause celebre the media adopt (pro-army, anti-Bush, pro-Sarajevo, anti-Somalia) have no doubt their goodwill can stop and turn on a dime.
Remember this -- the media did what the Germans didn't -- wipe out an entire Canadain Airborne Battalion.

Love them, hate them, we NEED them. We lose public opinion, we lose the war. We know it, and our enemies know it. I wish the media understood that, but again, they by and large serve the $$. It's the root of much of the contempt between soldiers and the media. We are motivated by very different things.

The general public is not blameless in this. One cornerstone of democracy is an informed public.
Unfortunately, if it takes longer than 3 minutes to explain, many Canadians tune out. "All people get the government they deserve."
Apathetic people get an apathetic society.

Many Canadians pay more attention to reality TV and the hockey playoffs than the world situation. They may be waking up, but the media should as well. 

Call me crazy, but instead of careerism and the mighty $$$, if the media (and politicans) got their heads around truth over sensation, reasoned debate over the sound-byte, we would have a better society.

Likewise, if the public spent several hours reading well-researched arguments on all sides before responding to an opinion poll on a controversial topic, we would be better off.

The problem is not 'images of coffins' or not. The problem is a public and media too damn lazy to read a book thicker than People magazine.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Apr 2006)

Well said, and I can only imagine the outcry that would go up on this site if the casualties had not been reported at all.


----------



## Haggis (25 Apr 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but instead of careerism and the mighty $$$, if the media (and politicans) got their heads around truth over sensation, reasoned debate over the sound-byte, we would have a better society.



Dreamer!  



			
				probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> Likewise, if the public spent several hours reading well-researched arguments on all sides before responding to an opinion poll on a controversial topic, we would be better off.



Informed or not, it's all in how the pollster words the question.  Most media polls have a pre-conceived notion of the response they want and they frame the question accordingly:  i.e. asking "Is half masting the flag for CF members killed in action appropriate?" following an emotional news article on Canadian casualties. OF COURSE they're going to get people supporting thier view!

On this topic, how would you respond to the following poll questions:

1. "Is the government right in following the American example in barring media from repatriation ceremonies?" or

2. "Is the government right in respecting the families of fallen soldiers by barring media from repatriation ceremonies?"

Same question. ("Is the government right in barring media from repatriation ceremonies?") Different spin.

(editied because I am at work and was trying to do too many things at once)


----------



## RCA (25 Apr 2006)

The flags and the banning of the media are two separate issues. The flag issue has been covered, and, I, along with most here feel the gov’t is following the correct policy.

However, it is becoming more apparent that the permanent banning of the media from the homecoming was made for political reasons by the gov’t as opposed to DND and I think this is a mistake. The media can be controlled on the base, so there is no in your face camera shoots, and it can be done with dignity and grace (as does the ramp ceremony). Those media that don’t abide by the rules, can be banned thereafter.  Once done at Trenton, the families can be left alone to grieve and bury their love ones.  Banning them just forces them to other locations that can’t be controlled. Remember, the media is the only way a lot of Canadians will have to watch and appreciate the sacrifice our soldiers have made.

I don’t believe the PM is following the US example, but the perception is definitely there. The PM, MND, or CDS for that matter can not attend all the arrivals of the fallen because there will be more, unfortunately probably more frequent as time goes on.  So a cynic might say the banning is in effect because the PM isn’t there. However, I don’t want to make political commentary at this time, because that time belongs to our 4 fallen comrades where it belongs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Apr 2006)

I think it's absolutely disgusting, cheap and immoral the way the lieberals are trying to make political hay by using the deaths of our soldiers in their arguments. If I ever needed another reason never to believe them, support them or vote for them, they've just given it to me. lieberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh and lieberal MP Paul Steckle should just shut their yaps and let the families mourn with dignity and in peace. They're just playing to the media, and that bunch of buffoons are merrily and cheerfully following along and dancing to the lieberal puppeteer. Kinda like the organ grinder and his monkey, making noise and begging for attention.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Apr 2006)

Quote from recceguy,
_the lieberal gov't is _ 


...missed the recent election, did we? 


EDIT:
Gordon O'Conner was just quoted on the radio as saying he did it [banning] for the families, even though he did not consult them beforehand......I'm torn on the whole thing but one thing I do know is the families should have been consulted.


----------



## Trinity (25 Apr 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Gordon O'Conner was just quoted on the radio as saying he did it [banning] for the families, even though he did not consult them beforehand......I'm torn on the whole thing but one thing I do know is the families should have been consulted.



If thats the real excuse.. then yes.  Cause the familes are now the scapegoats of a political decision.  

Otherwise, I'm glad to see the media finally put on a leash.  Play nice with us or we dont' play nice with you.
Although government institutions have been an easy and cheap target for the media to hit, the military isn't
like the other services.  When things go bad, people die.  Personally, I don't want a reporter saying anything
to anyone.  That should be my right.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2006)

I guess O'Connor's "Social Skills" are going to keep him in hot water in the Public Eye.


----------



## Roy Harding (25 Apr 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from recceguy,
> _the lieberal gov't is _
> 
> 
> ...missed the recent election, did we?



Actually, I read recceguy's post - he NEVER said "gov't", although "lieberal" was in there several times - unless there was an edit after the fact.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Apr 2006)

« Last Edit: Today at 16:13:28 by recceguy » 

Well of all the lowdown double-dealing snake in the grass sli...........oh yea, getting even for April Fools Day. :blotto: Got my car yet?


----------



## silentbutdeadly (25 Apr 2006)

well said recceguy! to much grandstanding by a party looking for anything for a comeback! makes me kinda sick actually. I agree with no media. If Canadians want to mourn i am sure they don't need images from a TV to do that.


----------



## geo (25 Apr 2006)

Hmmmm..... damned if you do, damned if you don't

Consult the families?.... do you do a consult each and every time?.... or set a policy and apply it evenly - across the board?........

I have heard that the media is welcome to attend the ramp ceremonies in Kandahar, the ban was being applied to the receiving end....Trenton. Call me cynical but I figure that, given the media's tallent to dramatize things beyond the Nth degree.... Ramp ceremony in Kandahar + ramp ceremony in Trenton = twice as many deaths to broadcast & fill papers with..... wanna see numbers get blown out of proportion? Each life is precious, each life lost should be mourned - I just don't see the value of earning political brownie points on this matter.


----------



## Jungle (25 Apr 2006)

Look at this headline: 





> Conservative government bars images of Canadian soldiers' caskets


 (emphasis is mine)
found here: http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=0651458c-3df1-4593-9a7a-d9c052000fe1&k=56478&k=3771&source=somnia
Is this manipulation of information or what ?? Nobody said it is illegal to show images of the flag-draped caskets; as a matter of fact, we all saw them during the ramp ceremony in KAF, and I believe these ceremonies will continue if/ when needed.
The Govt simply wants to keep the media away while the Families make their first physical contact with their lost loved one.
I agree with the decision.


----------



## Trinity (25 Apr 2006)

CTV tried to pass it off tonight that the "military" was upset with this decision and most
of its members felt upset over this decision.  Can't remember the way they put it
but I was swearing through most of the piece.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Apr 2006)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060425/flag_afghanistan__060425/20060425?hub=TopStories

I think you can see from the picture's that the media was present in all its glory at the ceremony.


----------



## parkie (25 Apr 2006)

Seeing the media behind that fence like that ,kind of reminds me of the monkeys at the zoo. I suppose I would get in trouble for throwing them peanuts too
The media will always cut to what they think will sell for them, Watching the news this morning, The news is interviewing a police officer at a murder scene, The typical questions, what do we know about the victims? What do we know about the one’s who committed this crime? Next question.So.Can you tell us what the murder scene looked like?   
I guess that’s what sells?

 I don’t know if it’s the media is to blame or people’s need for a glimpse of death! For those that want a first hand glimpse of death and emotion, Go volunteer in a hospital ward, or spend some time in a veterans facility.Better yet!plop a bucket on your noggin and go sit in a front fire position for a while.Guaranteed! All!! Your questions about life and death will be answered in short order.

                                                                Thank you. parkie


----------



## ladybugmabj (25 Apr 2006)

Everyone has their opinions, and it doesn't matter what we say, someone will always disagree with your decision. Thank God, and yes, the military for that ...a democracy. My husband called from Wainright tonight, and was quite surprised that the repatriation ceremony was banned. He fully agrees with the flag not flying at half mast. Like we both said, are you going to lower for someone killed in Afghanistan, and then not lower it for someone killed in Bosnia, etc (which has happened!). 
  It is human nature for us to see the grief that is being felt by all the families. And, as shown by CTV, the media was still there, behind the fence, but they were there. Just let this calm down and Afghanistan will be on the back burner again, and eventually, Canadian deaths will not be the lead story, but the "after thought" (I've seen that happen too!!)
  God bless all the military members where ever you serve ...you've done us proud!


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Apr 2006)

It is interesting to see what is know as the "Flag Flap".

I have read articles indicating that there are some hopping mad citizens.  That they have contacted their MPs in protest of our Leader's decision to return to protocol.

Here is a challenge, November eleventh is not a Holiday here in Ontario.  How about all people dedicate one day of their Holiday allotted time from work and visit a parade or commemoration.  Drop by a legion or an Armouries.  Instead of whining about what the government should do, or offer you to remember, I Challenge you to show it by sacrificing one day for your time...

That is the John Tescione "tess rememberance challenge"  of 2006.

Give up a day to remember.

dileas

tess

See you all there this November eleventh.


----------



## ladybugmabj (25 Apr 2006)

Tess....my husband was on tour with you that fateful New Year's Eve....1RCR, different coys I believe. I whole heartedlly agree with you! November 11 should be a National Holiday. What member of parliament is going to do the honours and get up and recommend this?? Please tell me again why that "stature" was revoked?? 
  God Bless!


----------



## parkie (25 Apr 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> It is interesting to see what is know as the "Fag Flap".
> 
> I have read articles indicating that there are some hopping mad citizens.  That they have contacted their MPs in protest of our Leader's decision to return to protocol.
> 
> ...


That would be nice,maybe next year there'll be more than just me and my two old buds,my family and the Minister.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Apr 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Gordon O'Conner was just quoted on the radio as saying he did it [banning] for the families, even though he did not consult them beforehand......I'm torn on the whole thing but one thing I do know is the families should have been consulted.



"Hey, I know your son was just killed overseas and you're going to meet his body today, but I wanted to ask you a quick question...hello...hello..."

I wouldn't have the balls to make that phone call.  You would?


----------



## military granny (25 Apr 2006)

Mr. Dorosh
How about the reporter that phoned the Costall family to ask how they felt about the "latest report" that their son may have been a victim of friendly fire? There has to be boundaries for the media and some how some way this type of reporting has got to be stopped. It reminds me of the rag mags in the grocery store.


----------



## ACS_Tech (25 Apr 2006)

The vultures (read media vans) were circling at least at 3pm as I was leaving work today and were probably there much earlier.  They were parked in the parking lot across from the cadet camp and were lined up all along the fence on highway 2.  I was furious.  I was about to call from my cell phone to the MPs but I saw a patrol car turn out and head in their direction as I was approaching the south side entrance.  CTV even had a camera on a boom for heaven's sake so they could zoom in.  How is this not a security threat?  I don't agree with having the media present at repatriation ceremonies but having them stalk from outside the base is probably even worse.  And when would dozens of people lining along the fence or a truck with a camera peering over the airfield fences be tolerated any other time?  Ridiculous. :rage:


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Apr 2006)

That is exactly it folks.

Jack Layton You ask the Prime Minister what he is trying to hide?

Bill Graham You say "We should not be hiding these things, Canadians are proud of their soldiers. They want to express their respect."

Ujjal Dosanjh you as the Liberal defence critic  said "He (The Prime Minister) has lifted a page from the Bush book and borrowed the Bush modus operandi," 

Garth Turner,  Daryl Cramp, Gordon O'Connor, and the list can go on...

I challenge you to make November eleventh a holiday.  A day where absolutely nothing is open.  A day where people must go to the appropriate venue and remember the sacrifice of Canadians for our Country.  

I challenge all Canadian media to block all broadcast of non essential shows, and provide coverage of the days events.  Provide documentaries describing the sacrifice of Canadians Past and present.

It is easy to jump on a bag wagon with a  catchy phrase like "Flag Flap" but let us see you put your ideas and values where they count.

dileas

John Tescione


----------



## Franko (25 Apr 2006)

Granny,

That is absolutly the lowest I've ever heard a news agency stoop to before....Lord only knows how the Costall family is dealing with it, then slap them with this insult, when will it end?

Well obviously the banning didn't stop CTV....they set up their cameras on a mast across the road, 400m or so away.

Anything to get a story I guess.     :

Regards


----------



## Haggis (25 Apr 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> That is exactly it folks.
> 
> Jack Layton You ask the Prime Minister what is trying to hide?
> 
> ...



This should be a letter to the editor man!

Go Tess!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (25 Apr 2006)

> I wouldn't have the balls to make that phone call.  You would?



How about the reporters who recently went door to door in the Edmonton PMQ patch looking for a young widow _three hours_ after she'd been informed her husband had been killed...?  Very classy.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (25 Apr 2006)

Well said 48th.

 I personally like the ban at the airfield let the family receive their fallen surrounded by family and the military family only. Keep it up Steven good decision.


----------



## Wookilar (25 Apr 2006)

Regarding the Call to Rob's Mom, it was the CP wire service that did the calling. The day after he got home. The comment was actually buried in one of their first stories about the FF investigation that they put on CBC's website (looked in the archive, couldn't find it. I raged about it at the time in one of my other eloquent posts here, though), like it was no big deal that they called  :rage: She had no comment, by the way.

And people wonder why many of us don't want them (the press) anywhere near our coffins and families.


----------



## military granny (25 Apr 2006)

Franko
I cried that day not just for Pvt Costall but for the family, and not because of what I saw on the TV but because of the way his wife was treated by the media.

Teddy R 
That was Mrs. Costall and they ended up moving her off the base to a secret location because the media would not leave her alone.
Wookilar 
The Canadian Press is still media and they are some of the worst. Now the reporter that call either has no brains or a big set of brass ones.
As you can probably tell this still makes me rage.
The only good thing I can say is the last time I was out at CFB Edmonton all the gates were closed and locked except the one at the guard house and our friendly neighborhood guards were taking licence numbers and wanted picture ID.


----------



## jc5778 (25 Apr 2006)

> That is exactly it folks.
> 
> Jack Layton You ask the Prime Minister what is trying to hide?
> 
> ...





			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> This should be a letter to the editor man!
> 
> Go Tess!



Absoluely agree 100%


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Apr 2006)

CBC news just had the grandmother of one of the fallen crying because she couldn't make the "ceremony" in person and didn't get to watch it on TV.  Actually, it may have been the grandmother of the widow.

I haven't been paying attention I guess - what more do they do at this "ceremony" other than slow march the casket from the plane to the hearse?

Revolting - they had 5 full minutes on the news about this "scandal" - and it was an abbreviated newscast due to the playoffs.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Apr 2006)

> That is exactly it folks.
> 
> Jack Layton You ask the Prime Minister what is trying to hide?
> 
> ...



Letter to the editor, aye...

Or a Ruxted editorial...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Apr 2006)

Michael,
I wasn't going to log in tonight but instead enjoy an evening off but I just finished watching that jerk-off trash eating CBC "newscast".
What a friggin' crock that was, three interviews with distant second something or others and one women standing outside the base whining about the desicion. Then of course Bill Graham doing his whining.......it ended with one small quick line " There are supporters of this desicion though, mostly troops in Afganastan"....now back to hockey..... :rage:


----------



## darmil (26 Apr 2006)

I agree with the governments decision. It's respect for the the fallen and their families, to the media its just another story.What if it was a reporters son would they want the media there asking questions and taking pictures?




RIP boys
cheers!


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 Apr 2006)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> That is exactly it folks.
> 
> Jack Layton You ask the Prime Minister what he is trying to hide?
> 
> ...



Thank you Tess, a worthy letter subject for any Canadian to write to their MP.


----------



## jc5778 (26 Apr 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> CBC news just had the grandmother of one of the fallen crying because she couldn't make the "ceremony" in person and didn't get to watch it on TV.  Actually, it may have been the grandmother of the widow.
> 
> I haven't been paying attention I guess - what more do they do at this "ceremony" other than slow march the casket from the plane to the hearse?
> 
> Revolting - they had 5 full minutes on the news about this "scandal" - and it was an abbreviated newscast due to the playoffs.



I think it was Bill Graham who in the clip in parliament was saying something to the effect that "the PM needed to reverse his decision so that the country can take part in the mourning..."  *HEY BILL, CHECK YOUR CALENDAR, NOVEMBER 11TH IS THAT DAY THAT QUITE A FEW SEEM TO FORGET ABOUT*  Did you notice that at the end of that "piece" the anchor mentioned that Steven Harper's decision (media ban) is shared by quite a few CF members in Afghanistan.  That was all that was said.  I think that the responsible thing to do would be to give the public the entire picture OF how CF members feel about this.  Despite the media ban, there was still a lot of footage from the ceremony.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (26 Apr 2006)

From this morning
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146001827001&call_pageid=968332188492



> But Alberta MP Leon Benoit, in whose constituency Payne lived, said the family didn't want coverage of the event.


----------



## geo (26 Apr 2006)

Hmmm..... wouldn't it be simpler for all - permit everyone to save face to have "army news" camera crew film and air on CPAC and the Trenton PRO to provide an appropriate number of photos to the press syndicates??...................

don't we have more important things to concentrate upon?

IMHO


----------



## OnTrack (26 Apr 2006)

People are missing the point here...this is not a "media" issue, this is a "political" issue.  The direction about no media at the ceremonies (and not lowering of the flags) came from, no doubt, the highest levels of Government.  I very much see this as a continuation of the PMO's direction to Ministers of the Crown, Generals/Admirals and other high level officials to keep "on message" - televising the repat ceremony takes the public off message.

The reaction of the media should have been expected...as they have essentially been cut off from access to Ministers or high level officials.  Their comments/complaints about the lack of access to the repat ceremonies is an outlet to continue criticising the Government.


----------



## mudeater (26 Apr 2006)

I have a unique perspective here. I am a full-time journalist and an infantry reserve member in Toronto. When I wear the uniform I am army first. Like the soldiers in Afganistan have a job to do so to does the media. The media is one of the institutions that is fundamental to a free and democractic society. The media holds the courts, politicians, and yes the army open to public scrutiny (Such is not the case in China or Syria) Scrutiny of institutions is key to an open and democratic society and fosters public debate, a freedom which many vets have fought and died for during the last 100 years. Do I think the media should be banned from the funerals? I think shooting and filming from a distance like they did was fine. As a CF member, if I was killed on tour I would want my return home covered in the media. I would have given the ultimate sacrifice for my country and I would want that shared with the nation who I gave my life for. There is a price for peace and stability - lives of our soldiers. Why hide that away in a closet like a dirty shame.


----------



## GK .Dundas (26 Apr 2006)

Mudeater,
 While not disagreeing with you I just have one question ,who does the media answer to?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Apr 2006)

........and if it was fair, unbiased reporting. Which is very seldom seen in today's media.


----------



## mudeater (26 Apr 2006)

There are many agencies where the public can file complaints about the media like the Press Council or CRTC, media are governed by the civil laws of libel and slander which can result in a lawsuit if not followed. But is Western media strongly regulated - no. If it is you erode freedom of the press - a foundation of deomcractic freedom.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Apr 2006)

mudeater said:
			
		

> There are many agencies where the public can file complaints about the media like the Press Council or CRTC, media are governed by the civil laws of libel and slander which can result in a lawsuit if not followed. But is Western media strongly regulated - no. If it is you erode freedom of the press - a foundation of deomcractic freedom.



Then I will assume that you are preparing a very good piece that will be published on November 11th dedicated to those that have fallen, correct?

Or will this all be forgotten by then?  Read my challenge and step up to the plate.

dileas

tess


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Apr 2006)

Quote from Mudeater,
_As a CF member, if I was killed on tour I would want my return home covered in the media. I would have given the ultimate sacrifice for my country and I would want that shared with the nation who I gave my life for._

Which of course is your wish, however at the risk of going over the line here, you would be deceased and maybe those who must now carry the burdens of losing a loved one do not want to have their private moments posted for the world to see.

The CBC reporter on site last night had one good line that I thought stuck out...."now that the soldiers have been repatriated, the families can decide how public or private they wish their memorial services to be"..............and of course Mansbridge didn't get it. :


----------



## clasper (26 Apr 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Here's a thought for you media types.
> 
> Instead of asking Joe and Jane Canadian, the local "used-to-be-in-power" Liberal backbencher, or some left wing university students who can't find Kanadahar on a map, why not ask *US*, the serving members of the CF, how we'd like to be remembered.
> 
> After all, it's our memories you claim are being disgraced in your haste to trample on tradition..


And the CBC has asked...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/04/26/soldiers-return-media060426.html


> Serving soldiers say arrival of bodies should be private
> Last Updated Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:16:11 EDT
> CBC News
> Many Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan agree with the Conservative government's decision to ban media coverage of ceremonies marking the arrival in Canada of the remains of soldiers killed in foreign action.
> ...


----------



## Haggis (26 Apr 2006)

clasper said:
			
		

> And the CBC has asked...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/04/26/soldiers-return-media060426.html



So has CANOE: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/04/25/1549972-cp.html

Finally someone listens to me!  (I'd better tell my wife. )


----------



## mudeater (26 Apr 2006)

Actually I won a national newspaper award for a Nov. 11 story I wrote about Ernie Scale who was injured in combat on Juno Beach on D-Day. I did a story in November about the head Canadian engineer in A-Stan who oversaw the construction of the camp, and I also wrote a story years ago about the LT who lead the boarding party on the ship Katie to get back all of the CF Equipment. I also have done numerous stories on reservists who go to Stalwart Guardian. My employer has also been recognized by the CFLC for its support of the CF.


----------



## fongs (26 Apr 2006)

Seems to me that our Prime Minister has no problem having a photo-op with our serving soldiers in Afghanistan.
But when a few come home in a pine box, he's nowhere to be found  :

Political bull%$ !


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2006)

fongs

You have just entered our RADAR and WATCH LIST.  You make this type of statement and then run.  Is this a "Hit and Run" tactic from one of our favourite Left Leaning Types or a concerned member?  We shall soon see.


----------



## Blakey (26 Apr 2006)

Interesting, army.ca in the news again.
Full story> http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/499329.html



> An army spokesman said there is no plan to shut down the access of journalists to the departure ceremony The vast majority of posts army.ca, a popular military forum, indicate that many veterans and members of the Forces on also supported denying media access to the ceremonies





> ""The less life-sucking media that is around to film the family’s grief for a 6 o’clock news bite, the better," wrote someone using the handle Piper.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2006)

Piper

Please stand up and take a bow.

You are now a media star.

 ;D


----------



## Bograt (26 Apr 2006)

I went to the local greasy spoon for lunch this afternoon. I was wearing my flying kit. There isn't a big military footprint in Corner Brook- (militia unit and a recruiting centre), but many people have family who are serving.

While standing in line I was asked by a older lady what I thought of the debate concerning repatriation and the flag. When she asked the restaurant got quiet. I guess it was the subject of the morning on the local call in show.

I said, " Ma'am, do you have any grandchildren?"
She replied Yes, 4".
I then asked, "Would you want their grieving faces on the six o'clock news if something tragic happened to you? The men and women who gave their life paid the ultimate price, they don't owe us anything more."

She bought me a coffee.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Apr 2006)

fongs said:
			
		

> Seems to me that our Prime Minister has no problem having a photo-op with our serving soldiers in Afghanistan.
> But when a few come home in a pine box, he's nowhere to be found  :
> 
> Political bull%$ !



The caskets are metal, firstly. Secondly, it's not his job to drop everything and greet returning soldiers. I'm hoping he has better things to do than photo ops. I'd also categorize his trip to Afghanistan as something other than a photo op, but of course, I don't have intimate details of his agenda. I do have friends of friends who were photographed with him "over there" and it seems he had opportunity to talk to a wide variety of people, presumably about our mission there.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2006)

Two issues have come to a head.

The first is a question of which flags should be flown at half-staff, and when.

The second is a question of media access to families during repatriation of the fallen.

These are simple questions to resolve, really, and have been simply resolved.  One is a matter of protocol and tradition, and the other is a matter of erring on the side of caution - we don't know which families or members of families do or do not want their grief shared publicly, so we elect to minimize the disruptions.  Contrary to some earlier comments in this thread, I do not see media access to funeral proceedings as an issue of watchdogging democracy (go bury your head in government records if your noble aim is to enlighten me on the doings of government), I see it as an issue of personal (family) privacy.

If you wish to make the argument that the Peace Tower flag might and should be flown at half-staff to honour a particular person, then make that argument on its merits.

If you wish to argue that media might and should be permitted closer access to grieving families - with the permission of the families - to help the public respect the families' fallen, then make that argument on its merits.

But if your wish is to score political points - comparing Harper to Bush, contrasting Canadian policies with American policies, reminding us of other grievances the media holds against the government, discussing the leadership style of the government, speculating that we are being prepared for involvement in Iraq or elsewhere, calling people puerile names, invoking past tawdry debates on these issues, sensationalizing whatever you think will sell papers or gain viewership, or wedging in any other issue not pertinent to the question of honouring and respecting the fallen - then please have the decency and integrity to not cloak your self-serving behaviour with a facade of solemn respect.  And if you've included those "arguments" in your missives and articles and editorials and rants, we know where you stand, what is important to you, and what the fallen mean to you.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2006)

Let's keep these two issues seperate for now.  There is a Topic that is covering the Half-masting of the Flag already:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42481.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42481/post-371644.html#msg371644


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Apr 2006)

George and Blakey:

Just to note that the same article that quoted Piper also quoted Military Granny and Bart Nikodem.


----------



## military granny (26 Apr 2006)

Guys and Gals this is getting crazy.
This line was under the headline Caucus rebels against Harper media ban
_Tory MP Inky Mark said he didn't believe the explanation by Harper and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor that the media should be barred from CFB Trenton, Ont., to respect the privacy of grieving military families.

"Don't believe the government," Mark said. "I believe that media should have access to all public events."_

Now can anyone of you tell me just when did a repatriation become a public event ? I always thought when they brought a family member home it was a private moment for the families to say their hellos and goodbyes without millions of people watching.


----------



## fongs (26 Apr 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The caskets are metal, firstly. Secondly, it's not his job to drop everything and greet returning soldiers. I'm hoping he has better things to do than photo ops. I'd also categorize his trip to Afghanistan as something other than a photo op, but of course, I don't have intimate details of his agenda. I do have friends of friends who were photographed with him "over there" and it seems he had opportunity to talk to a wide variety of people, presumably about our mission there.



First - It's a figment of speach "A Pine Box" I know the caskets are metal.
Second - What can be more important than representing the whole Country as our leader, and being there when the %$% plane arrives....
OH, I forgot that wouldn't look all that %$% great, a photo of himself beside a casket.
I suppose it's damed if you do, or damed if you don't.
However, the public won't remember this come next election :

I'm not a Liberal, Conservative or NDP supporter........I'm a CANADIAN and that flag on parliment hill doesn't belong to the politicians inside that building, it belongs to every person in this Country. If someone wants to fly it at half #$%$ mass because they want to show some repect to a fallen soldier, cop, firefighter that gave his life for this country, I see no reason or right you have to stop him.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Apr 2006)

fongs:

For the military a flag is a rallying point. Traditionally it is where a soldier looked to find order, authority and family on crowded, noisy battlefields filled with dead and dying.  The flag was not dipped while the enemy was engaged.  Dipping the flag would be taken as a sign of defeat or surrender by both friend and foe.

Flags may be dipped in secure environments to honour individuals and I am all for that.  I will also grant that the Peace Tower is a secure environment.  However in the battle of symbols I will argue that on the Peace Tower, as long as our troops are engaged,  that flag must remain undipped.  At full-staff it offers comfort to the troops.  In any other condition it offers comfort to the enemy.

Cheers.


----------



## Jack Neilson (26 Apr 2006)

I have sent the following e-mail to the Prime Minister with info copies to the leaders of the opposition.
Sir:
My family and I fully support your decision regarding the return to
traditional half masting of flags on the death of Canadian soldiers and of
the decision to bar media from the repatriation at Trenton.  That the media
and opposition parties should turn this into a political frenzy is abhorent.
I have today sent the following letter to 21 major newspapers across the
country.
Sincerely, 
John H. Neilson, CD
Canadian Army RC Sigs (Ret'd)


I am writing to express my deep disgust with the politicizing of the deaths
of our fallen soldiers by the media and by the opposition parties.  This is
both unseemly and disrespectful.  Where were the cries of "respect our
troops" prior to 2002?   Their bodies were repatriated without fanfare or
lowering of the Peace Tower flag.  In fact most Canadians didn't even know
they had died in the service of their country, 26 in the Balkans alone
during the 1990s and over 150 in various "peacekeeping" missions.  The
Canadian public was shielded from these facts, ignored the Forces and
demonstrated an unwillingness to support them.  The flag on the Peace Tower
was not lowered for these deaths nor for those which occurred during World
Wars I and II and Korea.  This is not a sign of disrespect.  There is a
formal protocol for half masting flags which is being strictly followed.
The Liberal government's haphazard policy of lowering the Peace Tower flag
for selected soldiers does not reflect the well-established rules for half
masting of flags and was not a "tradition" but a temporary bump in the well
established traditions of the country and the Forces. The Peace Tower flag
represents our country more than any other flag.  In my opinion it should be
lowered only on the death of our Queen, Governor General, Prime Minister and
on Remembrance Day. In respect of media coverage on the repatriation of our
dead at Trenton, I agree with the decision taken.  The media report our
casualties and film the departure from Kandahar.  There is no need for us to
also intrude on the families mourning and privacy, which is then rebroadcast
over and over again.   The government is not hiding the fact that these
deaths occurred or the manner in which they took place.  Despite the
outraged response of the media I do not believe this is an infringement of
freedom of the press but simple respect for the families involved.  The
feeding frenzy that both of these events has generated represents the
ultimate in disrespect for our serving men and women and I find it
disgusting that they should be used to score political points or
journalistic sensationalism.  Support our troops, respect our troops, honour
our troops, love our troops but do not misuse or trivialize their feelings
or traditions.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Apr 2006)

Jack Neilson said:
			
		

> I have sent the following e-mail to the Prime Minister with info copies to the leaders of the opposition.
> Sir:
> My family and I fully support your decision regarding the return to
> traditional half masting of flags on the death of Canadian soldiers and of
> ...



We should all send letters - can you list the 21 email addresses so we can all use them?
Mike


----------



## geo (26 Apr 2006)

Like I said, delegating some limited filming of the Arrivals to Army news & their film crews, it would be possible to give a limited but respectful "public access" to the general population via CPAC (I'm certain we can spare ourselves some of the nauseating debates in the house).

The press has been given full access to the ramp ceremonies back in theatre - That should be more than enough 

IMHO


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Apr 2006)

fongs said:
			
		

> First - It's a figment of speach "A Pine Box" I know the caskets are metal.



Sigh.  You mean a figure of speech. 



> Second - What can be more important than representing the whole Country as our leader, and being there when the %$% plane arrives....



Do you even know what  a Prime Ministeris or what he does? Seriously, type out the Prime Minister's schedule for the next week if you're so all-fire sure that he has nothing better to do. I'd love to see that information. Otherwise, maybe you should stop typing now.



> OH, I forgot that wouldn't look all that %$% great, a photo of himself beside a casket.
> I suppose it's damed if you do, or damed if you don't.



Yes, and due to visceral, overemotional persons like yourself typing uninformed rants instead of using a little common sense.  Rave on.



> I'm not a Liberal, Conservative or NDP supporter........I'm a CANADIAN and that flag on parliment hill doesn't belong to the politicians inside that building, it belongs to every person in this Country. If someone wants to fly it at half #$%$ mass because they want to show some repect to a fallen soldier, cop, firefighter that gave his life for this country, I see no reason or right you have to stop him.



It's called protocol, Beavis.


----------



## Blakey (26 Apr 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Like I said, delegating some limited filming of the Arrivals to Army news & their film crews, it would be possible to give a limited but respectful "public access" to the general population via CPAC (I'm certain we can spare ourselves some of the nauseating debates in the house).
> 
> The press has been given full access to the ramp ceremonies back in theatre - That should be more than enough
> 
> IMHO


geo, good idea.
AFAIK, having worked with them before, Army News equipment has the ability to hook into a SAT Truck. Thus the media would be able to use the feed from the Army News team on the ground, instead of having five or six different networks there, the Army could feed the signal to them all. 
If you don't mind, I'd like to staff this idea up the Army News CoC. I think this might be a viable option...


----------



## Jack Neilson (26 Apr 2006)

Mike,
Here is the URL for the Canadian newspapers.  Some provide an e-mail address, others require one to go through a form on their web page.  Had a phone call from the National Post this afternoon to say they are running my letter tomorrow.
http://www.newsdirectory.com/news.php?c=na&co=Canada
Political e-mail addressess are:
Stephen Harper pm@pm.gc.ca
Bill Graham granab0@parl.gc.ca
Jack Layton jack@fed.ndp.ca
regards
Jack


----------



## fongs (26 Apr 2006)

Michael thanks for the grammar correction. I see you are much more proficient in the English language than I. 

Kudos to you !

I do know what a Prime Minister is, and even who he is......thanks for your concern in the matter. Yes, your right he is a very busy man and his schedule must be very hard to change.......Trenton is so far away from Ottawa, he might even have to fly there. Not that he has a plane on call, fueled, staffed and ready at a moments notice. I suppose all that is just there for looks? I really do think he can find some time.....If not himself than perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister, CDS, or Defence Minister.

Sorry, I offended you. I don't think that I attacked you in any way directly, Did I ?


----------



## parkie (26 Apr 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> fongs:
> 
> For the military a flag is a rallying point. Traditionally it is where a soldier looked to find order, authority and family on crowded, noisy battlefields filled with dead and dying.  The flag was not dipped while the enemy was engaged.  Dipping the flag would be taken as a sign of defeat or surrender by both friend and foe.
> 
> ...


I thank you for this,kirkhill,of all the posts,this one brings a tear to my eye,it is not the fault of the younger,they know not how it feels to be lying next to death on the field and see even the smallest glimmer of canada,even an arm patch,can bring you back from deaths doorstep.It means friend,brother,family,I thank you again
                                                   parkie


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Apr 2006)

fongs,

Are you in the military?

I have been for nearly 22 years.  In that time, I have buried several of my colleagues who have died in aircraft accidents and one who died of cancer while serving.  Should the PM of the day have dropped everything and come to those funerals?  While I am absolutely not in any way minimizing the pain felt by the family and friends of the four most recently killed in Afghanistan, what is beginning to upset me personally (and I speak only for myself) is the calculus that some (with an agenda, perhaps) are using which makes some deaths worth more than others.

Suppose the next death of a CF member is a pilot who failed to eject from his aircraft- but it was a training flight.  Is he/she worthy of having the PM fly to meet the family?  What if the next casualty from Afghanistan is someone who had a heart attack while doing PT in Kandahar?  PM to Trenton again?  

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but, about 50-70 people (any medic in the crowd with better info than that, feel free to correct me)in the CF die every year, from various reasons ranging from car accidents to heart attacks to cancer to death in combat.  PM to meet the coffin in Trenton for each of them?  Or only those who died overseas?  How about just those killed in combat?  Who decides? Are you beginning to see just how ridiculous this gets?

For my part, if I were to die overseas, I would not want my wife to have to face a ramp full of cameras, media and a Prime Minister in Trenton.  I would not want the flag on Parliament Hill lowere for me, either.  I would be no more deserving of it than those who died in WW1, WW2, or Korea or on Peace-keeping missions.

fong, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but I believe that you are barking up the wrong tree here.  Please try to remember that many of those who are screaming the loudest about this are nowhere to be found when it comes to supporting the military when we really need the support- budget day (Jack Layton and most of the Liberal Party of Canada, are you paying attention?).  Your crocodile tears and faux anger do not impress me much.  Why don't you read and learn here for a while before you post again?


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2006)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Here is a challenge, November eleventh is not a Holiday here in Ontario.  How about all people dedicate one day of their Holiday allotted time from work and visit a parade or commemoration.  Drop by a legion or an Armouries.  Instead of whining about what the government should do, or offer you to remember, I Challenge you to show it by sacrificing one day for your time...
> 
> That is the John Tescione "tess rememberance challenge"  of 2006.
> 
> ...



Excellent post Tess and I will see you there. I never miss it. 

Saying that, I will offer up to the media once again to do something constructive regarding the flag issue and start writing Editorials constructive to the "Flag Flap" and Remembrance of *ALL* our fallen soldiers. 

As I posted earlier in this thread why don't you address the issue of a *NATIONAL* Remembrance Day Holiday, because as Tess points out apparently some (not just in Ontario) have more important things to do on Nov 11th than honouring their Fallen:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42550/post-371457.html#msg371457


----------



## military granny (26 Apr 2006)

If everyone that is a member of this forum sent a letter to the Pm's office stating that the people of Canada think that November 11 should be a national holiday that would be approximately 10,000 letters. I would be thinking that might get someones attention.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Apr 2006)

> Please try to remember that many of those who are screaming the loudest about this are nowhere to be found when it comes to supporting the military when we really need the support- budget day



I was too hasty.  Our most important day is Rememberance Day (thank-you Armyvern and Tess).  I hope to see every single one of those who is loudly frothing about media access to ramp ceremonies and flags on Parliament Hill to make sure you don't forget by the time Nov 11 rolls around!  Find a cenotaph and be there- hat off.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Apr 2006)

fongs said:
			
		

> Michael thanks for the grammar correction. I see you are much more proficient in the English language than I.
> 
> Kudos to you !
> 
> ...



No offence was taken.  As for your question - yes you did attack me.  Your poor spelling is an assault on my sensibilities, your poor grammar is the second jaw in the pincer movement slamming shut on my sanity; your heart-on-your-sleeve bleeding heart visceral reaction to this issue heedless of what professional soldiers keep posting here destroys my faith in mankind - in short, you have massed forces on the border of my entire perception of all that is decent and sensible in the world. You've drained my energies and depleted my reserves. My withdrawal from this thread will play DYNAMO to SeaKingTacco's HUSKY-like thrust into your soft underbelly.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Apr 2006)

Nicely done Michael.


----------



## fongs (26 Apr 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> No offence was taken.  As for your question - yes you did attack me.  Your poor spelling is an assault on my sensibilities, your poor grammar is the second jaw in the pincer movement slamming shut on my sanity; your heart-on-your-sleeve bleeding heart visceral reaction to this issue heedless of what professional soldiers keep posting here destroys my faith in mankind - in short, you have massed forces on the border of my entire perception of all that is decent and sensible in the world. You've drained my energies and depleted my reserves. My withdrawal from this thread will play DYNAMO to SeaKingTacco's HUSKY-like thrust into your soft underbelly.



Yes, nicely done.
Sure put me in my place.
I suppose you parade Tuesday nights at Mewata.
Perhaps we can discuss this then......Beavis !


----------



## Canal du Nord (26 Apr 2006)

I just wanted to commend this foum for the excellent, informative threads concerning the repatriation and flag half-masting issues.  I found the forum after Googling for information on the half-masting protocols.  It is encouraging that at least one media outlet is referring to the sentiments here, and I personally find the forum consensus to be refreshing in light of the uninformed opinions I have had the misfortune of being exposed to professionally and, of course, in much of the media.  

The thoughtful and well-expressed perspectives here reflect considerable credit on both the military and the country.  

I hope that some media outlets investigate the ugly harrassment of Mrs. Costall attributed here to the Canadian Press.

Well done; keep it up.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (26 Apr 2006)

fongs,

just go dude, just go. :boring:


----------



## Franko (26 Apr 2006)

Gents...keep the thread on topic.

Regards







FONGS.....PM INBOUND


----------



## Haggis (26 Apr 2006)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As I posted earlier in this thread why don't you address the issue of a *NATIONAL* Remembrance Day Holiday, because as Tess points out apparently some (not just in Ontario) have more important things to do on Nov 11th than honouring their Fallen:
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42550/post-371457.html#msg371457



After asking Tess for permission to plagiarize his earlier post challenging the powers that be, I posted an e-mail to my Member of Parliament, a Conservative, asking him to encourage his government to do just that. (Thanks, Tess )

If we can stand down business, education and commerce for Christmas and New Years Days, why can we not legislate a similar "celebration" of remembrance on Nov 11?  I remember when I was a kid, that Remembrance Day WAS a full stat holiday.  But back them we had a parliament with the backbone to properly support and honour it's Armed Forces, not simply use them as a show piece for political points.


----------



## Wookilar (26 Apr 2006)

I was talking to my Mom tonight (really, this is still on topic) about this. She works in the Town Hall down home, so she is in contact with a lot of people every day. She was interested in knowing what I thought about this issue (and the flag). We just happen to agree on these issues. As do most of us here.
She was getting a lot of questions from townspeople on what she thought, seeing as how many know I am in the Army and have been across the water a couple times (hey, that's kinda big in my home town  ) My Mom, being the smart cookie that she is, thinks it is just plain, old fashioned rude and ignorant of the press to be crying about this. She also commented on how most people are disagreeing with the new directives simply because they don't like PM Harper or his political views. I have to agree on that and I think that is what really burns most of us here, when you really get down to it. All this flap and screaming has nothing to do with us. It is all about who you support politically. If I thought for one moment that any of these people (especially the press) were concerned for myself or my family, I would have an easier time with it. The actions of the press after Rob's death, and the photos published today, show that the press cares nothing for us. It's all about the money shot (Hello Toronto Star  :skull 
Having gone through the loss of a parent at a very young age, I can not but help put myself in the shoes of the families involved. I know what it is like to be told that your Dad is never coming home again. There is no way that I want the faces of my wife and children (or my Mom) on national tv or the front page if I ever come home in a flag draped coffin. I would not wish that on anyone. The repatriation of fallen soldiers should be private. I did not join so the entire country could know of my life and death. I joined to serve.

I think a national campaign for a stat holiday for Nov 11 is an excellent idea. My emails will be off tonight. hmmmm, the Speaker of the House is my MP....interesting. Wonder how many votes we hold in this riding?


----------



## Canal du Nord (26 Apr 2006)

The point that Remembrance Day is the most fitting observance and commemoration for Canada's war dead is worthy; I would personally have reservations with the idea that its significance is necessarily enhanced by making it a "holiday", i.e., a full day off work.  I personally am given Remembrance Day as a stat holiday.  I do not shop on that day, and always watch the National Remembrance service on TV, and usually watch all the relevant programming on the History Channel throughout the day.

In the UK, the *Royal British Legion* lobbyed for a nation-wide observance of two minutes silence at 11:00am on November 11th, which is very moving and significant when all traffic stops, and all people stop in the street and in their work places, across the country for two minutes.  This is obviously much easier to do in a nation with one time zone, but it could, perhaps, be even more impressive for a country like Canada when 6 successive time zones all observe two minutes silence on a normal workday (rather than a "holiday"), and then continue on.  It would incorporate Remembrance into every day life and compel a pause for reflection that would likely be lost for most people if it became simply a day off work.  Just food for thought.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Apr 2006)

> I would personally have reservations with the idea that its significance is necessarily enhanced by making it a "holiday"



Think about it.

All business' closed.  You can not do _anything_ just like on Christmas day.

The only shows on the Telly are the Parades, commemorations, and cerimonies live.  Then it is followed up by documentaries of the sacrifieces past and present.

We do it for Santy Clause, so I do not see why we could not provide that for our Soldiers, past and present.

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 Apr 2006)

mudeater said:
			
		

> I have a unique perspective here.* I am a full-time journalist *and an infantry reserve member in Toronto. When I wear the uniform I am army first. Like the soldiers in Afganistan have a job to do so to does the media. The media is one of the institutions that is fundamental to a free and democractic society. *The media holds the courts, politicians, and yes the army open to public scrutiny* (Such is not the case in China or Syria) Scrutiny of institutions is key to an open and democratic society and fosters public debate, a freedom which many vets have fought and died for during the last 100 years. Do I think the media should be banned from the funerals? I think shooting and filming from a distance like they did was fine. As a CF member, if I was killed on tour I would want my return home covered in the media. I would have given the ultimate sacrifice for my country and I would want that shared with the nation who I gave my life for. There is a price for peace and stability - lives of our soldiers. *Why hide that away in a closet like a dirty shame.*



Mudeater,

Were the facts of the nature of the deaths hidden?

How long after the deaths were the media advised?

How quickly did the media have photos and personal details to print?

Did you have footage and photos from the ceremony of the departure from theatre?

Were those published?

Will your journalistic peers be covering each funeral, since you know who the soldiers are and the home towns?

If you have had (or will have) all of the above, please explain to me, exactly, how restricting media access at the one point when the remains are reunited with the grieving families constitutes "_hide[ing] that away in a closet like a dirty shame._"  You are supposed to be the objective journalist, yet even here you cannot resist sensationalizing this because it undercuts your petty desire to create stories.  Please, if you want to pretend that all, rather than some, of your ilk have professional standards and feelings for the fallen and their families, then do your best to present that yourself.

Do we really need tarmac photos for your and your editor to report the arrival? 

Who holds you open to public scrutiny, if not the members of each group you try to expose to public view?
Please, do not try to compare us to countries where you would have had no access based on a single restriction.


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 Apr 2006)

Bograt said:
			
		

> I went to the local greasy spoon for lunch this afternoon. I was wearing my flying kit. There isn't a big military footprint in Corner Brook- (militia unit and a recruiting centre), but many people have family who are serving.
> 
> While standing in line I was asked by a older lady what I thought of the debate concerning repatriation and the flag. When she asked the restaurant got quiet. I guess it was the subject of the morning on the local call in show.
> 
> ...



Bograt, well done, and a lovely anecdote for an objective journalist to borrow as a counterpoint to stirring the pot.


----------



## geo (27 Apr 2006)

Blakey said:
			
		

> geo, good idea.
> AFAIK, having worked with them before, Army News equipment has the ability to hook into a SAT Truck. Thus the media would be able to use the feed from the Army News team on the ground, instead of having five or six different networks there, the Army could feed the signal to them all.
> If you don't mind, I'd like to staff this idea up the Army News CoC. I think this might be a viable option...


Blakey, by all means, go ahead and do so. 
Army news photographers could provide stills as well


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Apr 2006)

fongs or Sabre1918 [pick one] said:
			
		

> Yes, nicely done.
> Sure put me in my place.
> I suppose you parade Tuesday nights at Mewata.
> Perhaps we can discuss this then......Beavis !



No worries, Cpl Ramsden; I hope to be around the regimental archives this summer, maybe I'll see you in the LdSH cage if you're still around.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (27 Apr 2006)

> Why hide that away in a closet like a dirty shame



That's a pretty low comment to make considering the company you are in. The PM made a decision and it's going to be followed. And irregardless of the who's whys and where's, one family did not want the media present at the repatriation at CFB Trenton, case closed, here's the door, well call you.

There is no secret agenda, no cover up, no "hiding in the closet like a dirty shame." Shame on you, for making the suggestion.

The media in my opinion needs to be treated like a young child, you get what you are given, or you get nothing. Harsh? Yes. But as it relates to this situation.....appropriate.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jul 2006)

Courtesy of the Access to Information and Privacy Act, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060702/n070207A.html

*Internal documents hint at military's discontent with Tory repatriation policy * 
ALEXANDER PANETTA, Canadian Press, 2 Jul 06

''OTTAWA (CP) - Senior military officials opposed the Conservative government's controversial ban on media coverage of homecoming ceremonies for soldiers killed in Afghanistan, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act suggest. 

A Department of National Defence official snapped photographs outside a repatriation ceremony in April to illustrate how the government's policy was causing security concerns. 

The department gathered pictures of journalists standing by the highway outside the Trenton, Ont., military base during the April 25 repatriation of four fallen soldiers. 

About 20 photographs were shown to Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, according to the documents. 

"This may cause safety issues and generate even more frustration, particularly in winter," Lt.-Col. Richard Lavoie, a departmental public-affairs director, wrote in an e-mail in which he forwarded the photos to several colleagues. 

Military officials found other ways to express their displeasure: they cleared equipment from the airport tarmac so the news media outside the base could have an unobstructed view of the ceremony. 

The moves came on the heels of a controversial decision from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government to keep the repatriation ceremonies a private affair. 

The Tories initially declared their new policy a permanent one, but have somewhat softened their stand amid criticism from fallen soldiers' grieving relatives. 

The Access to Information documents suggest discontent with the ill-fated policy was not limited to military families. 

The e-mail exchanges between departmental officials were accompanied by photographs of police cruisers blocking a highway lane outside the base. That security blanket allowed journalists standing by the highway to capture distant images of the incoming flight and solemn ceremony. 

A DND spokesman declined to comment on the repatriation imbroglio, saying the department often collects pictures of public events for archiving and training purposes. 

But reporters who attended the event did not require public documents as evidence that military officials were peeved at the government order. 

One journalist said the military made it obvious by their words and actions that day. 

Soldiers moved trucks, cranes and other equipment so news cameras could get clear shots from outside the fence surrounding the base. 

"The military men wanted us there," said one journalist assigned to cover the event. 

"They were (greeting us) like, 'We're glad you came.' " 

Ontario Provincial Police blocked off part of Highway 2 to protect photographers, camera operators and reporters from traffic, and a DND snapshot shows police officers huddling with a CTV crew, heads bowed and arms crossed, as they watched the ceremony on a video monitor. 

The Harper government informed the military of the controversial new policy on April 24 - the eve of the repatriation ceremony for Matthew Dinning, Myles Mansell, Randy Payne and William Turner. 

The four died in a roadside bomb explosion in the worst one-day combat loss of Canadian troops since the Korean war. 

The Harper government said the new guidelines were permanent. The policy was similar to one adopted by the Bush administration in Washington at the beginning of the Iraq war to keep the American public from seeing news images of returning caskets. 

DND officials received an e-mail from Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's office saying the new directive was being issued out of respect for grieving families. 

That line of reasoning was instantly undermined when the victims' families lambasted the government decision. 

At his daughter's funeral in May, Dr. Tim Goddard gave a stirring eulogy saying the young woman died to protect Canada's freedoms, not to restrict them. Nichola Goddard was the first Canadian female fighting soldier to die in combat. 

At Cpl. Matthew Dinning's funeral, his father Lincoln Dinning mentioned Harper by name and criticized the government's closed repatriation ceremonies.''

© The Canadian Press, 2006


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2006)

Why a parent of loved one would want the media watching them greet their fallen for the first time is beyond me.  I would say that the reasoning is not related to grief. Would I want to have the media watch me meet my son, if he fell? NO, emphatically, NO.  That is my moment and they can *amned well stay away!!! 

Even at that, the government has stated that, if that is what you want, fine, we'll adjust on an individual basis. I don't see the problem.


----------



## geo (4 Jul 2006)

The media are available and on hand in KAF for all ramp ceremonies.
They have plenty of footage showing grief and shows of respect.  From my perspective,  they've been given plenty... now leave me alone :warstory:


----------



## Infantry_wannabe (7 Jul 2006)

I'm glad the government made the decision purely for the families' sake. What a kind bunch they are...


----------



## geo (7 Jul 2006)

Cheech..... yeah

Real mench


----------

