# Michael Coren: "Caring for Karine"



## mariomike (18 Apr 2009)

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2009/04/18/9153761-sun.html
Caring for Karine
Sending our daughters to war in Afghanistan is just wrong

By MICHAEL COREN

Last Updated: 18th April 2009, 3:22am
So Canada sacrifices another victim on the altar of equality. 

Last week a young girl dressed up as a soldier died in the increasingly futile and pointless war in Afghanistan. She was 21 years old, had been in the country for two weeks on her first tour of duty and probably weighed a little over 100 pounds. 

Please know that I mean no disrespect to Karine Blais or to her family and I grieve for her and them. But what on earth was she doing in such a place and in such a job? 

Look at the photograph of this beautiful girl. Look at the innocence, the gentleness, the grace. All of them precious aspects to the human character. So when I say that she was "dressed up as a soldier" I mean it as a compliment. I've known soldiers all of my life and I have an invincible respect for them. I've seen their courage, integrity and sheer decency. 

I've also seen their capacity for controlled and righteous violence, which is absolutely essential for any fighting man. Yes, man. Because there are few if any women who have the skills required to serve as a front-line combat trooper. 

Yes, yes, yes, I know it's fundamentally anti-Canadian to say this but I'd prefer to articulate the views of the silent majority than hide behind some modernist fetish that places more importance on the myth of absolute equality than the safety of a girl who should be laughing with college friends rather than fighting theocratic madmen. 

Can we really imagine for a moment that if a group of Taliban tribesmen rushed a trench or an encampment this poor young woman could fight them off, could deal with the thrusts of their long knives and heavy clubs? Do we seriously think that the men in the unit would not risk their own lives to protect a pretty young girl who was inevitably being beaten to the ground by salivating killers? 

The very reason we have various weight categories for all forms of organized fighting is that whatever the training, a pugilist's weight and muscle bulk give an advantage to the heavier combatant. 

More than this, even contrived cultural denial should not prevent us from admitting that the death of a daughter or a wife is different from that of a son or a husband. Women nurture, give birth, care in a way that is unique. Quite simply, they are different from men. 

If captured, of course, such a woman would be repeatedly raped. And tortured. Again, I'm not meant to say this. Not Canadian, not CBC, not Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not the sort of thing we're supposed to feel, so we pretend that men and women in the army, police and fire service are given the same tests and have to fulfil the same requirements. Yet truth still breaks through. 

We rightly condemn Islamic extremists in Afghanistan because they treat women so badly. Then we allow one of our own to give her life so that we can congratulate ourselves on how liberal and egalitarian we are, lie about how gender difference don't matter and then encourage our generals and politicians to obscure the truth on television about soldiers and causes. 

What hypocrites we have become. Poor, poor Karine -- this is not the way it should have been. 

You and your country deserved better. 

MICHAEL.COREN@SUNMEDIA.CA


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Apr 2009)

Well, at least it's only a commentary and not "news".  What tripe!  :


----------



## stevea32 (18 Apr 2009)

What a crock of shit, screw you Mike..if a woman can pass all the physical demands of training why shouldn't she be deployed, Mike Crens kind of thinking is similar to the Taliban women should be hidden away because the aren't strong enough or must be protected from the world..go to hell Mike you disrespect all women in the CF when you say "dressed up like a soldier"


----------



## karl28 (18 Apr 2009)

The person who wrote this article really needs to give their head a shake .  First of all she is a women not a little girl  repeat after me a women . Secondly she is soldier in the Canadian Army cause it was her choice as an adult to join .  
        Man these fools that write these articles are just stupid.


----------



## ARMY_101 (18 Apr 2009)

What?!  I've read Coren's articles before and he's *usually* had some great commentary and opinions which I side with.  This is just totally out to lunch and away from reality.

Why should women be prevented from going to war?  The basis behind which Coren is arguing seems to be that her (or any woman's looks) is the determining factor in whether or not they go to war.  That's sexist and takes us back 50 years.  Fighting a war is not a man's-only game, just as we can't say Quebec gets out of sending soldiers because the Anglo-Canadians started the war.  Canada is in this together, and that includes men and women together who choose to fight for their country.

And now that I continue to look over his piece, I see that he's going back to the "women are weaker than men" discussion.  Fair enough - some women are weaker than some men.  But some men are weaker than some women.  Should we stop them from joining the army because they can't fight off the "stronger" Taliban?


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Apr 2009)

Okay folks, before we get into 20 pages of potshots at Michael Coren, why don't we get some good posts dissecting his commentary.

Show us what he said is wrong, or offensive, and back it up with reason.

Otherwise, we are constantly breathing life into this thread with utter tripe posts, yelling at him.

Looks like the scene from Life of Brian where the people want to stone the woman....

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2009)

Coren is partly right. Yes, I'd risk my life to save hers, but I'd risk my life to save the guy in my trench, or in the trench beside me just the same. Gender has nothing to do with it.


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2009)

Coren is right in one thing....we are not so removed from our past that this beautiful young woman can only be viewed by today's standards....I'm sad, but intensely proud that young men and women of this calibre serve.....


----------



## kilekaldar (18 Apr 2009)

Sent this to him


Sir,

I have just finished a 7 month tour with an Infantry Coy in Zhari, where I patrolled on foot on a regular basis alongside female medics and on a few occasion a female MP. They did the same job, carried the same kit and weapons, marched the same distances, took the same enemy fire and in all ran the same risks as the men. I never saw them flinch, display fear or weakness, and did their work with the same dedication and level of competence as the men present.
I witnessed, on the occasion of a recent deadly IED blast that took the lives of two Canadians, a female medic who was also caught in the explosion be the first to jump up from the ground and administer aid, organise triage and performe her duties in a superb manner despite her injuries from her close proximity to the blast, and knowing well the two deceased soldiers.
After having been in combat alongside Canadian female soldiers, I have determined for direct experience that the women of today make as good soldiers as men.
You, sir, obviously have no direct combat experience with women, and should keep your condescending, ignorant, archaic opinions that have no basis on facts or reality to yourself and resist the temptation to insult the efforts of Canadian women in uniform.


----------



## Armymedic (18 Apr 2009)

H is absolutely right about this:


			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> If captured, of course, such a woman would be repeatedly raped. And tortured. Again, I'm not meant to say this. Not Canadian, not CBC, not Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not the sort of thing we're supposed to feel, so we pretend that men and women in the army, police and fire service are given the same tests and have to fulfil the same requirements. Yet truth still breaks through.



A Cdn female soldier, if captured in Afghanistan (or any other 3rd world country for that matter) would be subjected to abuses that are unspeakable, and most certianly worse than death itself. 

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.


----------



## Fusaki (18 Apr 2009)

> A Cdn female soldier, if captured in Afghanistan (or any other 3rd world country for that matter) would be subjected to abuses that are unspeakable, and most certianly worse than death itself.
> 
> Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.



So?  

Who's to say that those risks are worse then the risks anyone takes to life, limb, and mental health?  It's an insult to our women in uniform to imply that they should be thought of any different then a male counterpart. We're a volunteer army and we all know what risks come with the territory.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (18 Apr 2009)

Unspeakable things can be done to either male or female if captured, bad guys are bad guys are bad guys.

I am willing to bet if something happens, most female soldiers don't want the fact that they are female made to be the issue, they are members of the Canadian Forces. Period.

But, I do think the average Canadian is not ready for women to come home in a flag draped casket.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Apr 2009)

> Not the sort of thing we're supposed to feel, so we *pretend* that men and women in the army, police and fire service are given the same tests and have to fulfil the same requirements. Yet truth still breaks through.



I'm at a loss as to what he is implying with these lines.  Do we test males and females differently in the CF?  Yes, the ExPres test, perhaps, but last time I checked, the BFT is the same for both genders and that is the fitness requirement for a tour.  "Yet truth still breaks through."  Huh?  Yes, a female *soldier* died.  Many male soldiers have too.  What "truth" is "breaking through" here? 

I also find offensive:



> Last week a young girl dressed up as a soldier died in the increasingly futile and pointless war in Afghanistan. She was 21 years old





> a girl who should be laughing with college friends



A 21-year-old is not old enough to join the CF?  Not old enough to decide to work instead of going to college?



> More than this, even contrived cultural denial should not prevent us from admitting that the death of a daughter or a wife is different from that of a son or a husband.


  
To imply that anyone's death is different based on gender is preposterous and insulting to the relatives and friends of *all* the fallen.



> Look at the photograph of this *beautiful* girl.



So, if she wasn't lucky enough to have good genes, her death would mean less?



> a young girl *dressed up* as a soldier



She wasn't "dressed up".  She was a soldier.  Implying that she wasn't is an insult, not only to her but to all serving women.


----------



## brihard (18 Apr 2009)

A woman I did PLQ with has just finished up a tour as a MCpl (RegF) crew commanding a LAV with Mike coy in Panjwayi. Hardly a job that would be given to someone who couldn't hack it. And of course the medics, MPs etc have already been mentioned.

It's unfortunate that this Michael Coren twit feels the needs to stray outside his arcs and spout off, but such is the nature of the media I suppose. I'm comforted by the fact that he really has no idea what he's talking about.


----------



## Tulach Ard (18 Apr 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> H is absolutely right about this:
> A Cdn female soldier, if captured in Afghanistan (or any other 3rd world country for that matter) would be subjected to abuses that are unspeakable, and most certianly worse than death itself.
> 
> Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.



Yeah, so? What, in this FREE country we are not allowed to make tht choice for ourselves? To say that "no, women cannot fight in combat because they are not fit to," makes us just as bad as Afghanistan putting such stupid restrictions on their women! Being a woman, awaiting my call for ARMOURED, a combat arm....this entire piece of hogwash absolutely infuriates me. I am just as much a Canadian as every man and if I want to die for my country I believe I have the right to decide MY OWN death.

Yes we know the possible tortures that await us if we are captured, it obviously hasn't stopped us yet. 

Now I cannot deny the fact that yes, my comrades would probably jump in to try and save my life....and I wouldn't if it was him on the ground? Sex does not matter a wink. If its my life for my unit-mate, there is no question, I would gladly take that chance. You know, since its MY life I think I can well decide what I want to do with it.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Apr 2009)

You all missed SFB's point in your rush to be indignate. Congratulations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Apr 2009)

His partial criteria is that she shouldn't be there because she'll be gang raped, if caught.

Guess what sunshine. If a guy gets caught he'll likely suffer the same violation. There's no better way to humiliate, degrade and demoralise a guy. 

These terrorists also have no shortage of volunteers to perform the task. Research man love thurday.

Michael Coren is a discredit to his profession. He bellittles her sacrifice by letting personal bias cloud a sombre moment.

Blood sells. Fucking journalists.


----------



## Armymedic (18 Apr 2009)

Indeed, and most of you are missing the point of the whole editorial as well.

When Canadians, most who are much more ignorant, and much less liberal than they themselves can admit, see the picture of a young male soldier killed they say, "He is so young, so brave, parents must be proud of him and his service." But when they see equally young female soldier, they say, "she is so young, she is so pretty, why did she join the military, why did she want to go fight, why was she not at home making babies?"

Equality, Idealism and liberalism sound good when it is words and ideas, but realism tends to hit those concepts in a face with a shovel, when metal meets flesh in the real world.

Yes, women deserve every right to do as men do. Unfortunately, instilled values and morals (protect the women and children) of our society and evolutionary ingrained instictive reactions and emotion will override intellect for a long long time.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Apr 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> Indeed, and most of you are missing the point of the whole editorial as well.
> 
> When Canadians, most who are much more ignorant, and much less liberal than they themselves can admit, see the picture of a young male soldier killed they say, "He is so young, so brave, parents must be proud of him and his service." But when they see equally young female soldier, they say, "she is so young, she is so pretty, why did she join the military, why did she want to go fight, why was she not at home making babies?"
> 
> ...



You'd have to be 'hit in the face with a shovel' to miss the utterly neanderthal, male chauvinist point of view espoused by our so called 'liberal' media.

Please don't talk down to us. We're not the morons in this discussion.


----------



## Armymedic (18 Apr 2009)

Nor do you have to be hit with a shovel to know the majority of Canadians are conservative in their views, who think a 21 yo pretty girl should be either a) at college presuing a career in education, nursing or child care, or b) at home getting married and making babies.

Canadians do not want to see thier young and pretty daughters killed in war.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Apr 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> Canadians do not want to see thier young and pretty daughters killed in war.


I don't think they really wish to see their son's die either.....WTF was that??


"Last week a young girl dressed up as a soldier died"

Mr. Coren,
 Hi, if by some chance you read this post then please know that you just made a complete, 100% asshole out of yourself and should be ashamed in the worst way.
I know I'm ashamed for you.......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Apr 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> Nor do you have to be hit with a shovel to know the majority of Canadians are conservative in their views, who think a 21 yo pretty girl should be either a) at college presuing a career in education, nursing or child care, or b) at home getting married and making babies.
> 
> Canadians do not want to see thier young and pretty daughters killed in war.


You are only espousing your own opinion. Please don't presume to speak for anyone else, including the majority of Canadians, unless you have their permission or valid, provable studies to back your say so.


----------



## leroi (18 Apr 2009)

Mods, if this post is too inflammatory please delete and dock me the requistie Milpoints. 

I think, 

There was something compelling about this death in the minds of many Canadians but it wasn't _just_ Trooper Karine Blais' gender:

-it was the timing and convergence of Karine's death with that of Afghanistan Women's Rights Activist Sitara Achakzai; Canadians tended to compare the two deaths--whether rightly or wrongly.

-it was the fact that Karine had only been in theatre 2 weeks--tragically un-tried; cut-down ... in her attempt to make this a better world--similar to what has befallen members of militaries throughout history.

-it was her youth--when it's a young death, as many have been, my heart hurts; we are culturally programmed, hard-wired to protect the young regardless of gender.

These elements are outside the fact of Karine's gender but taken together conspired to act as a national Canadian symbol for worldwide injustices to women. To many Canadians, Karine became that symbol--her death forced them to stop in their tracks and question the mission. This is not my opinion, this is what I've observed and here is one example:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/

(scroll down to Apr 15, 2009 entry)

I understand the feminist essentialist argument that SFB refers to; it underscores Coren's writing: women should be treated _equal_ to men but because of their essential biological differences males and females can never be considered the_ same_, but Coren goes too far. He misleads  and conflates.

1) Misleads: the title " ... Sending Our Daughters to War in Afghanistan is Just Wrong." This was Karine's choice. Karine was not _forced _ to go anywhere as Coren implies with his title. How arrogant of Michael Coren to denigrate the valiant choice this person made to defend her country and its values. 

2) Conflates: Coren's hidden agenda is not so hidden as belied by the statement "the increasingly futile and pointless war in Afghanistan." If the author wants to write an opinion piece on the futility of the war in Afghanistan then he should do so; but, not by exploiting the deaths of either female or male Canadian soldiers. Karine was proud of her choice as indicated by statements made to the press by her mother.

3) But this turn of phrase of Coren's is, I find, intolerable " ... a young girl dressed up as a soldier ..."  She passed muster, she was a _Canadian Forces trained, professional Van Doo!_  Coren deserves a swift kick in the vicinity of his arrogant male testicles  for that. How dare he reduce her efforts to that of a dress-up doll ... "another victim sacrificed on the alter of equality," indeed!!! 

(@*&~WTF!!~*&^% :rage

And further, Karine was a "young woman" not a "young girl"-- It's belittling and disingenuous of Coren to try to sneak-in that distinction!

She was a beautiful young woman with a face that galvanized a nation--I think that's undeniable. But hopefully Canadians will see beyond that fact and place Karine's efforts in respectful and honourable perspective alongside her brothers- and sisters-in-arms. 

I believe Karine's sacrifice should not be seen as different than anyone else's based on gender.  I think the CF showed exceptional leadership by firstly, anticipating public reaction and secondly, by immediately making it clear to the public that "females and males work shoulder to shoulder" in the Canadian Forces.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Apr 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> When Canadians, most who are much more ignorant, and much less liberal than they themselves can admit, see the picture of a young male soldier killed they say, "He is so young, so brave, parents must be proud of him and his service." But when they see equally young female soldier, they say, "she is so young, she is so pretty, why did she join the military, why did she want to go fight, why was she not at home making babies?"





			
				SFB said:
			
		

> Nor do you have to be hit with a shovel to know the majority of Canadians are conservative in their views, who think a 21 yo pretty girl should be either a) at college presuing a career in education, nursing or child care, or b) at home getting married and making babies.


Are you just saying that you THINK this, or do you have some proof you're basing this on?

As for Coren:


> Look at the photograph of this beautiful girl. Look at the innocence, the gentleness, the grace. All of them precious aspects to the human character. So when I say that she was "dressed up as a soldier" I mean it as a compliment. I've known soldiers all of my life and I have an invincible respect for them. I've seen their courage, integrity and sheer decency.  I've also seen their capacity for controlled and righteous violence, which is absolutely essential for any fighting man. Yes, man. Because *there are few if any women who have the skills required to serve as a front-line combat trooper*.


1)  Do you have the 'nads to say that to any woman who's been there, done that?
2)  If you believe that there are certain things women can't do because men are better at it, I eagerly await your upcoming column on why men can't be nurses or child care workers - after all, if men can be trained to dish out "controlled and righteous violence", how can they be caring or nurturing, right?



> We rightly condemn Islamic extremists in Afghanistan because they treat women so badly.


Wild idea to throw out there - based on reports like this and this, maybe making it better for the women would make it better for, oh, I don't know, the MEN as well?



> Then *we allow one of our own* to give her life so that we can congratulate ourselves on how liberal and egalitarian we are ....


You think things would be better if we DIDN'T allow women to do the job if they're able to?  After all, it would be out of respect for their special status, right?  Maybe we could even create "secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct", right?  Click on the link to see who agrees with you...


----------



## Armymedic (18 Apr 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You are only espousing your own opinion. Please don't presume to speak for anyone else, including the majority of Canadians, unless you have their permission or valid, provable studies to back your say so.



If my opinion is that Canadians do not want to see thier daughter die in war, then yes, I am espousing it. In fact every one of my comments is my opinion, regardless if it is based in fact or impression. 

If every comment, opinion or idea here needs scientific proof backing it, then we are going to have one boring website to visit.


----------



## Armymedic (18 Apr 2009)

And I have one more opinion.

Tpr Blais does look dressed up  in her file photo. Her combat shirt is too large and she lacks a Cdn flag on her shoulder, lacks a name tag, and her slip on does not have a regimental designation.

You'd figure if you were lined up to get a stock photo to be released to the media, that someone in the CoC would have ensured thier troops were properly dressed?

But that is just my opinion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Apr 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> If my opinion is that Canadians do not want to see thier daughter die in war, then yes, I am espousing it. In fact every one of my comments is my opinion, regardless if it is based in fact or impression.
> 
> If every comment, opinion or idea here needs scientific proof backing it, then we are going to have one boring website to visit.



Ahhh, but see, that's not what you said  Anyway, point, on both sides, made. No need to derail the subject further.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Apr 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> And I have one more opinion.
> 
> Tpr Blais does look dressed up  in her file photo. Her combat shirt is too large and she lacks a Cdn flag on her shoulder, lacks a name tag, and her slip on does not have a regimental designation.
> 
> ...



I believe lack (shortage of) of uniform accoutrements was addressed in another thread.


----------



## Tulach Ard (18 Apr 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Please don't talk down to us. We're not the morons in this discussion.



Thank you Recce. My thoughts exactly.

I am not mad at anyone other than the slimeball that wrote that article. Ignorant and chauvanistic, and his words make my blood boil.


----------



## mariomike (18 Apr 2009)

ENGINEERS WIFE said:
			
		

> I do think the average Canadian is not ready for women to come home in a flag draped casket.



My wife was very upset. I know I shouldn't admit it, but I was too.


----------



## leroi (18 Apr 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> My wife was very upset. I know I shouldn't admit it, but I was too.



You're not alone in struggling to come to terms with this.


----------



## Loachman (18 Apr 2009)

Michael Coren is neither an idiot nor a "slimeball".

He is a respectable and intelligent columnist.

He is also very conservative in his views, and a little old fashioned.

We have come a long, long way in a few short years regarding issues such as gender equality and integration, full acceptance of gays - to the point where they can participate, in uniform, in Gay Pride Parades - and perhaps a few other socially controversial issues. There is a thread here somewhere where transgender issues regarding washrooms and showers is being discussed very openly and maturely (last time I looked, anyway). That would not, could not, have happened not too very long ago. When I joined, there was still a QR&O entitled "Sexual Deviance" and homosexuality was a chargeable offence.

Much of the rest of society is still lagging behind. Most of the rest of society has never had to deal with these issues, has no experience with them, and cannot imagine where the CF is today.

Not so long ago, my attitudes towards women in the CF were rather similar to Mr Coren's. It took a lot to convince me that integration of women into combat roles was anything other than a huge mistake, but I saw it happen bit by bit and have no lingering skepticism at all anymore.

Karine represented, and represents still, among many good things, what is the norm for us now, but she is still a pioneer to many in society at large and her death will mean different things to many people than it does to us. Mr Coren is simply expressing some of those views.

Respond to Mr Coren, but do so to educate rather than insult.

He is not so close-minded as he may appear in this one column, and gentle education will do him, and us, much good.


----------



## Walt (18 Apr 2009)

Loachman,

Very wisely & eloquently stated. Your comment is impressive. Thank you.

Walt


----------



## Loachman (18 Apr 2009)

Walt said:
			
		

> Loachman,
> 
> Very wisely & eloquently stated. Your comment is impressive. Thank you.
> 
> Walt



Thanks. I get that way sometimes.


----------



## armyvern (18 Apr 2009)

Mr Coren, with all due respect Sir ... grow up.

The world has moved on and we 'girls dressed up as soldiers' have come a long way. We earned it and here we are.

Your opinions are lovely (if very outdated and chauvenistic), but I'll not give up a career that I love and am good at - to satisfy the likes of you.

We cared for Karine - she was, and always will be, one of us; may she rest in peace.


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Apr 2009)

> Not so long ago, my attitudes towards women in the CF were rather similar to Mr Coren's. It took a lot to convince me that integration of women into combat roles was anything other than a huge mistake, but I saw it happen bit by bit and have no lingering skepticism at all anymore.



Bingo. Those are my thoughts exactly. I admit that my reaction to Karine was somewhat different than it has been for the males before her. Perhaps I have accepted the concept of females fighting in combat, but the concept of them dying in combat lags behind a bit.

God bless all of them, and the families.


----------



## Greymatters (19 Apr 2009)

This young lady is not the first female CF member to have met an untimely end.  However, with her youthful looks and appearance it is all to easy for those with personal agendas to use her as a way to drive home their own points, which is not only tasteless but disrespectful to her passing.

Regarding Mr. Coren's attitude and description of a "girl dressed as a soldier", I don't find that this can be passed off as just old-fashioned conservatism - he's an educated and experienced person who should know better than to use statements that indicate personal bias and prejudice.  Judging by his wording, he probably refers to his own female co-workers as 'girls' as well, and I would imagine those women are no more impressed than our female CF members...


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Apr 2009)

If we now bar women from combat ops, we have taken a step back. Is this what we want? It is OUR choice, as men OR women in Canada to join the military, and some of us will pay the ultimate price. To deny women that CHOICE is wrong.


----------



## armyvern (19 Apr 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> This young lady is not the first female CF member to have met an untimely end.  However, with her youthful looks and appearance it is all to easy for those with personal agendas to use her as a way to drive home their own points, which is not only tasteless but disrespectful to her passing.
> 
> Regarding Mr. Coren's attitude and description of a "girl dressed as a soldier", I don't find that this can be passed off as just old-fashioned conservatism - he's an educated and experienced person who should know better than to use statements that indicate personal bias and prejudice.  Judging by his wording, he probably refers to his own female co-workers as 'girls' as well, and I would imagine those women are no more impressed than our female CF members...



And I'd agree with you; I most certainly don't "dress-up" as a soldier .. I AM a soldier.

Edited to add ... here's what "dressed-up" soldiers look like.  

Wishing someone would pimp my ride.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Apr 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> He is a respectable and intelligent columnist.



It doesn't show in this particular piece.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> He is also very conservative in his views, and a little old fashioned.



Using the death of a soldier to bash the current government is, IMHO, as distasteful as this commentary.  
A "little" old fashioned?   :


----------



## Armymedic (19 Apr 2009)

Given that women have only been allowed to be employed in combat roles in the last 15 or so years, and functionally have been actually employed in them in the last 10 years, the idea of women being cbt arms can still be considered a relatively new ideal for most ordinary Canadians, most whom have little or no real knowledge of our profession.

Also, considering that the majority of the Canadian population is over 35*, for the female half, the concept of joining the CF after right out of high school and participating in combat would be totally foreign, regardless of their moral compass, and how progressive their ideals of feminist equality would have been.

Mr Coren views are not "old fashioned", assuming his demographic, and those of whom he interacts with. 

People should not assume that the writer of this is not respected nor intelligent because his views are not the same as yours. His views are not so different than my parents, or the retired nieghbours who live next door.

Just because we were forced to be more enlighted than most Canadians because of Charter rulings of the SCC years ago, does not give us the moral right to insult others whom have yet to experience the practical application of universal equality for all.

* http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/demographics/

Edited to fix link


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Apr 2009)

I am not debating whether or not Mr. Coren is respected or intelligent.  He more than likely is.  However, IMHO, his commentary could have been better written to portray his beliefs.  As it is, I personally find it insulting and disrespectful.

Do you seriously feel that we have been "forced" to be more enlightened than most Canadians?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2009)

As has been pointed out, Mr Coren comes from a generation that is horrified at the idea of wonem being in the Combat Arms (or the military in general). This is a very old and deep belief that women and children are to be protected and cared for, and that it is the job of the men to do the protecting and caring.

In fact, this belief is hardwired into us over the course of 3 to 5 million years of evolution, so a bit of Trudeaupian social engineering isn't going to erase that. Now I know that not all men are protective of women, and I would be reluctant to cross Vern in a dark alley, but we must keep in mind that these are actually exceptions rather than "the rule" among the population at large, and work a little harder at enlightening people to the nature and reality of our job.


----------



## Armymedic (19 Apr 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Do you seriously feel that we have been "forced" to be more enlightened than most Canadians?



You and I were forced to put up with each other for how many years?  ;D

Seriously, though. Yes, it is my opinion that* DND (the CF) was forced by the rulings of the SCC and subsequent decisions by our elected officials to change the policies which restricted employment of women in certian areas of the CF. My read of history past, and personal experience at the time (I joined as this was happening), gives me the impression that this was the case.

*for recceguy


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Apr 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> You and I were forced to put up with each other for how many years?  ;D



Yeah, well, we survived, right?  



			
				SFB said:
			
		

> Seriously, though. Yes, it is my opinion that* DND (the CF) was forced by the rulings of the SCC and subsequent decisions by our elected officials to change the policies which restricted employment of women in certian areas of the CF. My read of history past, and personal experience at the time (I joined as this was happening), gives me the opinion that this was the case.



So you _personally_ think those restrictions should still apply to women?  I can understand how some people feel about women in combat roles, however, I think that women should be able to have the choice, provided they can pass all the tests, both mental and physical.  When I joined, the restrictions were still in place but I wasn't bothered as the combat arms trades didn't interest me in the least.  However, things have changed.  Case in point:  Did you know when the PMed Tech trade first started, women were not allowed to apply?


----------



## Armymedic (19 Apr 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> So you _personally_ think those restrictions should still apply to women?



No. And nowhere on this website did I say anything to that effect.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Apr 2009)

Hey Moe, were you and SFB ever married?  My ex had this amazing talent for hearing things I never said too, and I'm just wondering if it's a common thing?   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (19 Apr 2009)

On a whole, I find this piece by Michael Coren rather naive.  He has chosen to write on Karine's death but has overlooked a vastly different aspect altogether.  He criticises our society for allowing women the freedoms to become Combat Soldiers and try to better the world as is the case with Karine.  He, however, fails to comment on the women of the world, the Karla Homolkas and others, who have over the centuries been equal to men in their cruelty to their fellow humans.  Michael Coren has written an idyllic piece, where the "fairer sex" is supposedly totally "innocent" and "nurturing"; and we all know that is a fantasy.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Apr 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> No. And nowhere on this website did I say anything to that effect.



My apologies, then.  I misread what you stated about the CF being forced to change policies and your personal experience bit.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Hey Moe, were you and SFB ever married?



No, just posted to the same unit for a long period of time.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> On a whole, I find this piece by Michael Coren rather naive.  He has chosen to write on Karine's death but has overlooked a vastly different aspect altogether.  He criticises our society for allowing women the freedoms to become Combat Soldiers and try to better the world as is the case with Karine.  He, however, fails to comment on the women of the world, the Karla Homolkas and others, who have over the centuries been equal to men in their cruelty to their fellow humans.  Michael Coren has written an idyllic piece, where the "fairer sex" is supposedly totally "innocent" and "nurturing"; and we all know that is a fantasy.



I agree, George.  I also find that gender aside, most of his comments were based on her looks and age.


----------



## observor 69 (19 Apr 2009)

"Prolific broadcaster and writer Michael Coren holds court on this flagship program. The show deals with breaking headlines and current issues and since debate is Michael's strong suit, spirited and intelligent conversation is the norm. Whether it's the weekly Monday, Wednesday and Friday media panels where Michael and his regular guests digest the week's news cycle or usual mix of federal politics, international affairs, arts and culture, faith matters and one-on-one interviews on Tuesdays and Thursdays, viewers can be assured an hour of thought-provoking television. 

Born in London, England, Michael came to Canada in 1987. For several years he was a weekly columnist for the Globe and Mail and broadcaster on TV Ontario. In 1995, he became a syndicated columnist for the Financial Post and the Sun Newspaper Group, a print run that has grown to include the Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg Sun and the London Free Press, as well as his own evening phone-in show on CFRB Newstalk Radio. Currently, Michael co-hosts the highly-rated 'Two Bald Guys With Strong Opinions' every weekday with former Liberal Party president Stephen LeDrew. Aside from his platform on television and radio, Michael also appears in the National Post, Catholic Insight, the Interim and Women's Post. Michael is the author of eleven books including biographies of G.K. Chesterton, H.G. Wells, C.S. Lewis and frequently crosses the country as a highly popular and entertaining public speaker."

http://www.ctstv.com/ontario/show.php?key=11


As soon as I encounter any of the following, Michael Coren, the Sun newpaper or the Christian Television System I immediately move on.
Guess Micheal is SOL in trying to reach me with any of his opinions.
If this sounds like Micheal Coren bashing you're right.


----------



## The Dunnminator (19 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On a whole, I find this piece by Michael Coren rather naive.  He has chosen to write on Karine's death but has overlooked a vastly different aspect altogether.  He criticises our society for allowing women the freedoms to become Combat Soldiers and try to better the world as is the case with Karine.  He, however, fails to comment on the women of the world, the Karla Homolkas and others, who have over the centuries been equal to men in their cruelty to their fellow humans.  Michael Coren has written an idyllic piece, where the "fairer sex" is supposedly totally "innocent" and "nurturing"; and we all know that is a fantasy.



Excellent point, I spoke about this article with one of my friends who was really close to Karine. He comes from the same small village, we both went to school with her, he has the same age and he joined at the same time as her and knew her from his early childhood. What sickens him, and myself, the most about this article is the distinction the author made about her looks. If she wasn't good looking, would the idea of this article even came to his mind? Karine wasn't weak mentally and was perfectly able for combat, she did the same training as any men of her regiment and she decided to join in a combat arm because she loved this job and would have hated to do a desk job. Of course her death is tragic, but so are the deaths of every other member who died in this mission. How is her death any more tragic than one of a 40 year old man who leaves his children to grow without a father and leaves his wife to take care of the childrens alone? To me we are all equal as humans in life and death and while I am deeply saddened by her death, I think it is a great thing that in our society she had the opportunity to do what she really wanted in her life before dying. The last thing she would have wanted is her death to reopen this sexist debate.


----------



## leroi (19 Apr 2009)

The Dunnminator said:
			
		

> Excellent point, I spoke about this article with one of my friends who was really close to Karine. He comes from the same small village, we both went to school with her, he has the same age and he joined at the same time as her and knew her from his early childhood. What sickens him, and myself, the most about this article is the distinction the author made about her looks. If she wasn't good looking, would the idea of this article even came to his mind? Karine wasn't weak mentally and was perfectly able for combat, she did the same training as any men of her regiment and she decided to join in a combat arm because she loved this job and would have hated to do a desk job. Of course her death is tragic, but so are the deaths of every other member who died in this mission. How is her death any more tragic than one of a 40 year old man who leaves his children to grow without a father and leaves his wife to take care of the childrens alone? To me we are all equal as humans in life and death and while I am deeply saddened by her death, I think it is a great thing that in our society she had the opportunity to do what she really wanted in her life before dying. *The last thing she would have wanted is her death to reopen this sexist debate.*



Yes, I was trying to make this point but you have done a better job. Let her death be dignified and honourable and let her rest in peace rightfully and equally alongside her brothers- and sisters-at-arms without further politicization of her death.

To raise her up above her peers is to diminish male efforts and by extension--overall team efforts, too.

You knew of her and confirmed what I would have suspected: Trooper Blais would not have wanted her death to be treated any differently than the other Fallen. :yellow:


----------



## Aegis (19 Apr 2009)

Very interesting discussion.

 I would submit that there are actually three elements in competition here.

 The first being that, in my opinion Mr. Coren mixed his apparent dislike for the Afghan mission with the examination of women in combat. This shows in the comment, "..increasingly futile and pointless war in Afghanistan..." which really has nothing to do with the rest of his column.

 Second is the uncomfortable feelings that we have when recognize that we do treat the death of a female soldier differently than the death of a male soldier. The initial column and this discussion, as are the countless discussions about this topic that take place are indicators that we do actually view the death of a female soldier differently.
 My opinion is that this bothers us so much because it goes against what we intellectually believe to be ethically correct. We ethically believe that women should have the same opportunities as men, even opportunities that may result in negative effects but that conflicts with the message our society gives us that women should be treated differently, with more respect and more reverence.
 How would the captain of sinking ship be viewed if he stated men first instead of women and children first? 

 Lastly, and I think most unsavoury to our ethical selves is that there are in fact very real differences between men and women that, at least according to the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces may have a detrimental effect on their combat capability as compared to men. 


From the same report: 



> "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men."
> 
> Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
> 
> ...



 I tried to find a link to the report on line but couldn't, "Women in the Military" by Brian Mitchell is a good collected source. I must also admit to being to lazy to retype portions of the report from a hard copy and have instead copy and pasted from the internet. 

 These very real differences between men and women, at a physical capability level make us uncomfortable because, again my opinion, it shows us that nature doesn't care about our ethical or moral beliefs that everyone should be equal, in truth we are not.
 But its our fight against nature, our refusal to accept the limitation of biology that makes us more than just animals. We as a society have determined that even if someone is not physiologically equal they will be treated as if they are. The question should be, how far does the right of equality extend to where it may potentially endanger someone else? Any military is not a group of individuals, it is a team, and as such its capability is a sum of its collected parts. If it is demonstrated, quantitatively, that some portion of the team for whatever reason reduces the overall capability where does that persons right to equality of treatment balance out with the needs of the team to be capable? 
 As a short, uncoordinated person I lack the capabilities to be a world class basket ball player. Do I, in an effort of asserting my equality even when it can be demonstrated I am not equal have the right to demand the same treatment as a word class basketball player? To play on their teams, to compete in the biggest games, to contribute to the success and failure of that team? Or is their a point where the needs of the team, or in the case of a military a nation, superceded my desire, perhaps even my right to be treated equally?

 I hope that no one sees anything that I have written as an attack on women in the combat arms. My own viewpoint is that we are looking at a symptom and not a disease. The disease, again in my opinion, is different standards for acceptance. As LTC Gregor said, "Adopting a male standard of fitness...". Why two standards? This inherently creates doubt about capability. Why not just the military standard and everyone must meet it, no matter their gender? This would completely eliminate any discussion about capability. Sure, as per LTC Gregor's study 70% percent of the women would have failed the first year but the capabilities of those that succeeded could not be held in question because they had met the same standard. My belief is that in our efforts to provide equality to everyone over the past decades we may have actually undermined the achievements of those that are truly capable and created an artificial system that supplants finding your real limitations with a society that will instead reduce its standards in order to provide a false sense of equality. I personally see this in many more places than just the military.

 Aside from the quotations from the report these are my opinions and I apologize if I have presented them in a manner some may find offensive. My condolences to Karines family .


----------



## mariomike (19 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> He, however, fails to comment on the women of the world, the Karla Homolkas and others, who have over the centuries been equal to men in their cruelty to their fellow humans.



I think the gender gap in violent crime is unequal:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm


----------



## George Wallace (19 Apr 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I think the gender gap in violent crime is unequal:
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm



  I really don't think there is a gender gap.  This is not a numbers game.  Women are just as equal as men to commit violent crimes.  Percentages or numbers of women committing these crimes may differ, but that is of little consequence to the victims or survivors of violence.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Apr 2009)

Given her trade and what she would have to subjected herself to in order to get on the very ground where she was killed, I have difficulty believing there was ever an equality issue remaining in her mind. I just wish that, if she had to go down in that miserable place, she could have taken a few of the enemy with her, like she was trained to do, and I suspect, probably would have done had she been given a fighting chance.  The people with the equality problem are the enemy- a thousand of them are not equal to or worth the life of such a fine Canadian soldier.


----------



## koopa (20 Apr 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Coren

His conservative views come from his religion. His religious beliefs is the problem here IMO. Look at his views on AIDs and abortions. Still in the 19th century


----------



## Greymatters (20 Apr 2009)

Aegis said:
			
		

> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> I would submit that there are actually three elements in competition here.



If you are going to include one report, you should search and find others - you will find that the 'physical fitness test' measures only very few aspects of fitness and those are focused on strength and endurance.  They do not measure agility, flexibility, reaction speeds, etc. or hand-to-eye coordination, areas where women tend to excel better than men...


----------



## Mathius71 (20 Apr 2009)

some people just need to step in to the 20th century.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Apr 2009)

Mathius71 said:
			
		

> some people just need to step in to the 20th century.



_ psst _ ....we're in the 21st Century now


----------



## Lil_T (20 Apr 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> _ psst _ ....we're in the 21st Century now



baby steps JM, baby steps


----------



## mariomike (20 Apr 2009)

Mathius71 said:
			
		

> some people just need to step in to the 20th century.



I wish I could. I miss the '70's!


----------



## Greymatters (21 Apr 2009)

...and thus another topic of temporary interest begins its spiral towards the drain...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2009)

I think I've waited long enough. The originator of the article, Michael Coren, was emailed and informed of this thread. He was asked to attend, and read, the posts here. To give his point of view, and to dispute, defend or deny any allegations.

He has, obviously, decided to hide behind his mantle of corporate ingnominity. His loss, and his professional stature.

This is the 'premiere' Canadian forum for the voice of the nation's soldier. If Mr. Coren cannot afford some minuscule time in his obviously, very, busy day to refute the views that he espoused while encapsulating his antiquated views on the Canadian soldier, I feel his printed articles are as worthless as the time he can afford to those he mocks. Mr. Coren is entitled to his views and opinions. However, to use the national press to espouse and try to advance his lone, personal agenda, is despicable and a abuse of the freedom of press.My  :2c:


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Apr 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think I've waited long enough. The originator of the article, Michael Coren, was emailed and informed of this thread. He was asked to attend, and read, the posts here. To give his point of view, and to dispute, defend or deny any allegations.
> 
> He has, obviously, decided to hide behind his mantle of corporate ingnominity. His loss, and his professional stature.
> 
> This is the 'premiere' Canadian forum for the voice of the nation's soldier. If Mr. Coren cannot afford some minuscule time in his obviously, very, busy day to refute the views that he espoused while encapsulating his antiquated views on the Canadian soldier, I feel his printed articles are as worthless as the time he can afford to those he mocks. Mr. Coren is entitled to his views and opinions. However, to use the national press to espouse and try to advance his lone, personal agenda, is despicable and a abuse of the freedom of press.My  :2c:



Thank you, recceguy!


----------



## Tulach Ard (21 Apr 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Thank you, recceguy!



Yes! No kidding, awesome idea!  :nod: Too bad he didn't answer...=(


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Apr 2009)

Two posts:

Dr Dawg (see end):

Mixed bag: criminals, cops, STV and a soldier's death 
http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2009/04/mixed-bag-criminals-cops-stv-and.html

Damian Brooks:

STFU, Coren
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/stfu-coren.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Apr 2009)

Regarding this Coren bloke.

Just another journalist. I have never heard of him.

Just another article seeking publicity through controversy and sensationalism, chasing ratings for his own recognition or the rag he writes for. We see this all too often these days.

Overall a 1/10, or a fart in a prairie windstorm.

Todays newspaper is tomorrows fish and chips.

I've already forgotten who he was. That being said, I will NEVER forget the life lost of a young and inspiring Allied soldier, regardless of the gender of that person. 

Tomorrow there will be yet another written article, yet written by someone else, with more controversy and sensationalism for the benifit of themselves or the rag they write for, thus taking the heat off this one.

And life rolls on.....

My 2 bob on this.

OWDU.

EDITed for spelling


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Apr 2009)

Here here, recceguy!


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Apr 2009)

> Yes, yes, yes, I know it's fundamentally anti-Canadian to say this but *I'd prefer to articulate the views of the silent majority* than hide behind some modernist fetish that places more importance on the myth of absolute equality than the safety of a girl who should be laughing with college friends rather than fighting theocratic madmen.



Who is this person that claims to speak for the "silent majority"?  I've never articulated my opinion on abortion, does that automatically make him my spokesman on that issue, or any other?  This proclamation is simply self-aggrandizement, capitalizing on the assumption that the "silent majority" also won't stand up and tell him he's full of crap for claiming his opinions represent theirs.  Perhaps the majority is silent because many of them just don't care enough to speak out - they have no collective opinion, and it's pompous to claim they share anyone's en masse.

How disgustingly undemocratic, and "fundamentally anti-Canadian" by the way, to unilaterally claim to speak for the "silent majority", perhaps he'd like to vote for them too and just run the country as a personal dictatorship. 

I am Canadian, and Michael Coren does not speak for me.


----------



## jmbest (22 Apr 2009)

I find the comments on this blog entry: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/011250.html slightly more annoying than anything else. 

Suddenly feel like we're back in 1950.  :


----------



## Greymatters (22 Apr 2009)

Reading Coren's article was like hearing the footsteps of an ancient dinosaur - but judging by the responses of support the article has gained in some quarters, it is certain that there are a large number of other dinosaurs willing to join up and form a stampede...


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Apr 2009)

As for the goof who implied Tpr Blais was killed because she couldn't take the heat and they opened the gunners hatch for air I have some advice for him:

SHUT UP. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. That is one lame excuse, as I've seen men have a hard time with heat.


----------



## leroi (22 Apr 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Reading Coren's article was like hearing the footsteps of an ancient dinosaur - but judging by the responses of support the article has gained in some quarters, it is certain that there are a large number of other dinosaurs willing to join up and form a stampede...




 :'( Agreed Greymatters-it's a shame.

So, here we are in 2009, witnessing both the death of a soldier at the hands of an enemy considered regressive in their treatment of women and the dishonour of that same soldier by progressive-thinking citizens of her own country based on gender ... 

To me, the issue is not gender, it's not youth, it's not beauty; it's not timing: it simply boils down to one atrocious fact: narrow-minded journalists and followers who refuse to look beyond their own prejudices to the higher aspirations of honouring a Canadian soldier in death by putting all "differences," gender, etc., aside.

As a mother, if there was ever a reason for me to talk my son out of joining the Canadian Forces, it would be this: you live in a country that might not stand behind you when you die in service to it. A country comprised of respected journalists and others who might even insult and dishonour you in death. 

Well, it's been said before and I'll say it again, if Canadians can't stand behind their troops, then get in front of them; that includes Mr. Coren.

God bless Trooper Blais' family; to have to live through the hell of having a child pre-decease you followed by a continuing media-circus dishonouring the same would have tipped me right over the abyss into insanity--certifiable. 

I will have that talk with my son today and remind him that he lives in a backward-thinking, regressive country that may--depending on political agendas, moral biases and persistent, deep-seated evolutionary, ingrained learning that can't be un-learned--dishonour you in death.  

God bless Trooper Blais, the wounded, the Regiment, the family and friends. May she rest in dignity, honour and peace.:'(

Thank you recceguy. I have snail-mailed a letter to The Sun.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Apr 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding: Post #69 on: Today at 11:23:43  :
> Just for the record, that was Michael Coren quoted, not me!
> My sister has been in the Reg Force nearly 32 years.
> I would never hear the end of it if she thought those words were mine!
> Thank-you.



Fixed.


----------



## mariomike (22 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Fixed.



Thank you, Michael.
For anyone intestested in reading the "History of women in the military":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women_in_the_military
There is still a way to go in some departments:
http://www.i-women.org/in_the_news.php?piece=43
"Only about 32 women are now on the job, out of 11,400 total firefighters; seven of those are from the original 1982 group and are eligible for retirement now or in the near future."


----------



## leroi (22 Apr 2009)

mariomike thank you for the references. I have no problem admitting we have a way to go and that we may, as a culture, be functioning at different levels of acceptance re: gender in the workplace or in combat.

But I won't accept the work of journalists, like Mr. Coren, who exploit a soldier's death to advance their own agenda; that is what I see when I read the article in question because that is what Michael Coren has done. 

(PS: If any of you are hankie-wringers like me, don't read the comments section on the blog "small dead animals" otherwise you might get the impression that the nation is living in the 1950s.)


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Apr 2009)

Some disputation in two posts at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_ (I have a Dawg in this fight, see "Comments" at the posts):

Swing And A Miss: The Progressives Don’t Get It
http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/swing-and-a-miss-the-progressives-dont-get-it/

Suddenly The Feminists Care About Afghanistan, For Wrong Reasons
http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/suddenly-the-feminists-care-about-afghanistan-for-wrong-reasons/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cavalryman (22 Apr 2009)

jmbest said:
			
		

> I find the comments on this blog entry: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/011250.html slightly more annoying than anything else.
> 
> Suddenly feel like we're back in 1950.  :



The irony is that most of the regulars on this particular blog who support Coren believe that they "support the troops", and are modern conservatives, all for individual responsibility and participation in the nation's affairs.  Also interesting that most of those in support of Coren never served...  kinda puts this garbage in perspective - in particular the attitudes of some members that segment of Canadian citizenry we tend to think supports us.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Apr 2009)

And now for something completely different,.........lets keep this on topic.

Thanks,
Bruce


----------



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2009)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> The irony is that most of the regulars on this particular blog who support Coren believe that they "support the troops", and are modern conservatives, all for individual responsibility and participation in the nation's affairs.  Also interesting that most of those in support of Coren never served...  kinda puts this garbage in perspective - in particular the attitudes of some members that segment of Canadian citizenry we tend to think supports us.



Are they not also the demographic whose support changes with the winds/tides?


----------



## JBoyd (23 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are they not also the demographic whose support changes with the winds/tides?



I always thought that those type of people were the ones that were members of the BC Marijuana Party


----------



## mariomike (25 Apr 2009)

Letters on subject to Sun editor link:
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/letters/2009/04/25/9240686-sun.html

'You're a dinosaur'
Last week's Afghanistan column touched a nerve, but I am right

By MICHAEL COREN, TORONTO SUN

Last Updated: 25th April 2009, 4:28am
A journalist always knows when a column has been a success. Partly it's the hundreds of e-mails of support, but equally it's the almost as numerous letters that try, in appalling English, to insult you. 

This is meat and drink to those who think and write outside of the comfort zone of standard Canadian media. 

Last week I said that an intensely inexperienced 21-year-woman should not have had to give her life in the pointless war in Afghanistan. The responses were fascinating. 

Most of the critical ones seemed obsessed with the fact that the poor girl indeed should have been able to die. A rather perverse way to support her and her family. 

The vast majority of these were the usual nonsense. "Everyone is equal," "you're a dinosaur," "I hate you." Then all sorts of delightful and failed attempts to spell the word "misogynist." 

OK, let's go a step further. Anyone who claims the war in Afghanistan is about gender equality is either supremely naive or extraordinarily dishonest. We said hardly a word about women's rights in that country until the United States was attacked on 9/11. So, apparently, women were treated well before the Twin Towers outrage but badly afterwards. 

More than this, while the Soviet Union was a repugnant regime, the Afghan government begged for Russian help when it was attacked by the Taliban and one of the policies Moscow advocated was women's rights. 

ARMING THE MADMEN 

The response of the West, including Canada, was to arm and support the very Islamic madmen we are now fighting because, ostensibly, they treat women so badly. 

We sacrifice our soldiers, including young women who ought not to be there in the first place, to the guns of the very people we said were the good guys when they were fighting our enemies at the time. Then we pretend this is a noble war and that it's all about freedom, gender and social justice. 

In this war we and our allies sometimes bomb innocent people and destroy villages where mothers and children live. But it's all in the name of some great struggle to make sure that young women can waste their lives for a soon-to-be-reversed policy decision -- one that obliges us to fight the Taliban while simultaneously giving special trade favours to regimes that have exactly the same human rights records. 

Something similar has happened in Iraq, where untold suffering has been caused by western aggression because of the supposed need to remove a tyrant who was our friend for years and who, by the way, was a secular leader who actually supported female equality. In that war the western powers allied themselves with various states, such as Saudi Arabia, that treat women appallingly. 

Most of this will be far too deep and challenging for the cliche-laden blowhards who want me to be, according to their e-mails, fired, killed or castrated. They seem to glory in innocent death and hypocritical foreign policy and seem to care not a bit for smashed children if they are brown, Muslim and poor. 

It's all like some gigantic television reality show where foolish people live vicariously through the lives of others and fail to realize that behind the curtain of banality is a genuinely real world that demands more than facile and smug responses. 

So sad yet so predictable. 

MICHAEL.COREN@SUNMEDIA.CA 
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2009/04/25/9240701-sun.html


----------



## Occam (25 Apr 2009)

Yep, he's right alright.  Right out of 'er.

"Everyone is equal" is nonsense?  I can't think of a better way for him to illustrate that he *is* a dinosaur.

I didn't respond to the column before, but I sure as hell will now.  In halting English, and to his editor.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Apr 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> ....but I am right.
> 
> **********
> It's all like some gigantic television reality show where foolish people live vicariously through the lives of others and fail to realize that behind the curtain of banality is *a genuinely real world that demands more than facile and smug responses.*
> ...



Coren is correct in his final paragraphs, but he's mistaken who's who; his own analysis was apparently "far too deep and challenging for the cliche-laden blowhards"....which he has shown himself to be.  

It should be obvious that _Tpr Blais _ was actually part of that "real world," whereas _Coren_ provides absolutely nothing but "facile and smug responses."

Such media response is indeed, "so sad yet so predictable."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Apr 2009)

He's said nothing to refute the coherent and intelligent responses to his initial attack. He's only assailed the writing challenged few who use ad hominem attacks, poor spelling and grammar. Same as we do here.

He has a following now, friend or enemy, it matters not. He's selling pulp and paper for his bosses. His convictions are suspect and secondary at this point.

He'll keep poking this issue and his detractors in the eye with a stick until it loses steam. Why? Because he's a journalist. One that 'creates' news instead of going out and getting it the old fashioned way. 

He had a personal invite to come here and debate, however that would have taken guts, conviction and intelligence. He has none of those qualities, judging by his latest response.

With his latest diatribe, containing just enough to keep his series in the same geographical portion of the planet, he's shown his true colours and deserves no more of my time.


----------



## Franko (25 Apr 2009)

Tripe...utter tripe. Using a soldiers death to further his own career.

Well done.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2009)

Hey!  It is idiots like us who respond to his nonsense who are keeping him and his paper in business.  If no one responded, positively or negatively, it would be like: if a tree fell in the forest and no one was there........"Who would really care?"  He'd be out on the street begging.


----------



## armyvern (25 Apr 2009)

Not if they respond by the posted email addy instead of linking to their site or buying the paper.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not if they respond by the posted email addy instead of linking to their site or buying the paper.



It doesn't matter.  It just fuels his ego and provides more for him to pontificate about.


----------



## leroi (25 Apr 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> http://www.torontosun.com/comment/letters/2009/04/25/9240686-sun.html
> By MICHAEL COREN, TORONTO SUN
> 25th April 2009
> 
> *Last week I said that an intensely inexperienced 21-year-woman * should not have had to give her life in the pointless war in Afghanistan. The responses were fascinating.



Thou Liest, Mr. Coren!

Compare the two entries and witness how the author tries to dig his way out of his first inflammatory pejorative against Trooper Blais by "cleaning up" his language--PET-style. 



> 18th April 2009: So Canada Sacrifices Another Victim on the Altar of Equality
> 
> *Last week a young girl dressed up as a soldier * died in the increasingly futile and pointless war in Afghanistan. She was 21 years old, had been in the country for two weeks on her first tour of duty and probably weighed a little over 100 pounds.



He's lost credibility in this family. :yellow:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Apr 2009)

_Something similar has happened in Iraq, where untold suffering has been caused by western aggression because of the supposed need to remove a tyrant who was our friend for years and who, by the way, was a secular leader who actually supported female equality._

Yea, as long as they would subject themselves to the whims of his family when so ordered......yup, they all had the right to be equally tortured.

Not to mention so called "journalists" like Mr. Coren are so pathetically content in their overstuffed office chairs they forget that most of the world doesn't have a free press, so for him to say all of a sudden "untold suffering" started somewhere is the ultimate in lazy journalism......................oh, it happened Sunshine, you just didn't know, or care, because it wasn't spoon-fed to you on your office computer.


----------



## JBoyd (25 Apr 2009)

leroi, you brought up the exact point I was thinking.

and for some reason I have a very large urge to go there and kick him in the junk.. although that would probably give him too much satisfaction as he is apparently proud at the negative response the previous article received


----------



## leroi (25 Apr 2009)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> leroi, you brought up the exact point I was thinking.
> 
> *and for some reason I have a very large urge to go there and kick him in the junk.. *



 :rofl: 

I think he deserves that but we'll hold the higher moral ground if we just snicker & put him on our ignore list for now ...

Plus, we don't want to end up compromising ourselves for the sake of poor journalism ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Apr 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> So sad yet so predictable.



Yup, he is.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Apr 2009)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> and for some reason I have a very large urge to go there and kick him in the junk



That would be, of course, if he has any. 

Given his armchair quarterbacking and grasp of reality, of all things martial, I would tend to assume, he only has a mangina (with the requisite sand). 

I doubt he'd know what to do with it, if he found a real man's junk in his pants.

This is one of those 'ad hominem' attacks I spoke about.   ;D It's just too hard to resist such an open door.


----------



## Greymatters (25 Apr 2009)

_Its a bit late, as many have already made the same points, but since I took the time to craft the response earlier today I figured I might as well post it... _ 



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> 'You're a dinosaur'
> Last week's Afghanistan column touched a nerve, but I am right



"But I am right" - right off the bat, this is not a retraction or an apology, it is a follow-up to the first article.  He also seems to be proudly wearing the title of 'dinosaur'.  As already pointed out, a good news writer/editor knows how to milk a hot topic regardless of their viewpoint...




			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> A journalist always knows when a column has been a success. Partly it's the hundreds of e-mails of support, but equally it's the almost as numerous letters that try, in appalling English, to insult you.



So you're either a supporter, or insulting AND inarticulate (non-supporter).  Apparently no messages were received from articulate yet polite non-supporters...



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Last week I said that an intensely inexperienced 21-year-woman should not have had to give her life in the pointless war in Afghanistan. The responses were fascinating.



No you did not.  You called her a girl, and accused her of being a dress-up soldier, ignoring the fact that she had qualifications and credentials the same as every other young soldier sent over to that country.  

This statement makes it apparent that its okay for women to risk their life or get killed while working for humanitarian orgs, or get raped and killed while working for a church/missionary team in some African country, or travel to dangerous areas and get kidnapped as a news reporter, even get mugged and injured while as a tourist in some foreign country, but its a shame for her to have gone to Afghanistan to fight for something she believed in.  According to Coren's standards, once you are in the military you are not allowed to act in support  of your beliefs, especially if youre a girl dressed up as a soldier.  
  


			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Most of the critical ones seemed obsessed with the fact that the poor girl indeed should have been able to die. A rather perverse way to support her and her family.



He also seems to take delight in using words with negative impact that completely misinterpret the point of his many insulting and inarticulate respondants.  I sincerely doubt they are all 'obsessed', and although he (again!) refers to her as a 'poor girl', Im sure most of those respondantrs refered to her a grown woman able to make her own choices.  

He completely misses the point.  Isnt being a police officer dangerous as well?  Well, lets stop women from doing that job.  What about firefighting?  Isnt this dangerous?  Are female firefighters also to be regarded as 'dress-up firefighters' with no experience?  How about paramedics? I've met plenty who have encountered dangerous situations, and many have had their lifes at risk just dealing with everyday cranks, addicts, psychos and emotionally disturbed patients.  

Does he describe these dangers as well?  Does he suggest that women should be barred from these dangerous jobs?  No, the point is that he is against the war, and if he can score points by using a woman's death as his tool, apparently he's pretty happy about it. 



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> The vast majority of these were the usual nonsense. "Everyone is equal," "you're a dinosaur," "I hate you." Then all sorts of delightful and failed attempts to spell the word "misogynist."



_The vast majority of these were the usual nonsense. "Everyone is equal,"... _ - the statement speaks for itself.  Did I mention he was proud of being a dinosaur already? 



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> OK, let's go a step further. Anyone who claims the war in Afghanistan is about gender equality is either supremely naive or extraordinarily dishonest. We said hardly a word about women's rights in that country until the United States was attacked on 9/11. So, apparently, women were treated well before the Twin Towers outrage but badly afterwards.



Apparently some female rights activitists were very upset.  Its a bit disapointing that he deliberately takes their points out of context (see above - women have the right to choose an occupation where their lives might be at risk).  Not only that, but he refers to some alternate universe where Canada was allies with Islamic militants, that Canada armed them when they were fighting the Russians, and at some point in the past we called them 'the Good Guys'.  

He continues rambling on about the damage in the country.  I wont argue with the points there, war is a nasty business and many innocent lives are lost... but what's that got to do with him refering to a female soldier as a girl playing dressup?  Focus, Coren, focus!!     

Oh, and then the rant about Iraq - c'mon Mikey, remember what the complaints were about.  Im pretty sure nobody complained to you about Iraq.  Quit scoring the cheap points and come back to the game for the big home run...  

Which is to complain about innocent death (a good point) and a hypocritical foreign policy (also a good point), but neither of these has to do with calling a girl a dress up soldier for doing something she believed in.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> It's all like some gigantic television reality show where foolish people live vicariously through the lives of others and fail to realize that behind the curtain of banality is a genuinely real world that demands more than facile and *smug responses*.



I just read one...



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> So sad yet so predictable.



Unfortunately, it was...


----------



## cavalryman (25 Apr 2009)

Considering that Mr. Coren has yet to step up to the plate, I would suggest that Tpr Blais' committment, guts and sacrifice threatens his masculinity, and shows him to be a small, small man, one who resents having to hide behind men and especially women who do step up.

Samuel Johnson said “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier"

Mr. Coren, I would suggest that Johnson was thinking specifically of you.


----------



## Lil_T (26 Apr 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That would be, of course, if he has any.
> 
> Given his armchair quarterbacking and grasp of reality, of all things martial, *I would tend to assume, he only has a mangina (with the requisite sand). *
> 
> ...



sorry - but I just choked on my beer.  Love the mangina reference.  :rofl:


----------



## armyvern (26 Apr 2009)

Lil_T said:
			
		

> sorry - but I just choked on my beer.  Love the mangina reference.  :rofl:



Well, you can't expect Recceguy to compare him to we women - sand does not exist in our ovaries.


----------



## Redeye (4 May 2009)

I especially like this little revisionist gem:

"More than this, while the Soviet Union was a repugnant regime, the Afghan government begged for Russian help when it was attacked by the Taliban and one of the policies Moscow advocated was women's rights. "

Really Mike?  I didn't realize there was some space-time continuum distortion that allowed the Afghan government to beg for help protecting themselves from an organization that did not exist until well after the 40th Army left Afghanistan.


----------



## AlphaCoy (5 May 2009)

Here's what I wrote to Michael Coren.  I'll let you judge for yourself if I'm just insulting him with appalling English.  I will admit, I was very >tempted< to insult him - particulary over the amount of phallic overcompensation he manages to squeeze into the image of "long knives thrusting at her trench".  However - well, read for yourself...

-------------------------snip---------------------------
Sir:

I am a Canadian infantry officer of twenty five years experience.  I didn't know Trooper Blais, but I do know that she volunteered to serve her country, took the challenge, took the training, and earned the right to wear the uniform.  I didn't know Trooper Blais, but I know many women like her who have served in combat with courage, committment, skill, and honour.  I take extreme exception to your assertion that women should not be in the combat arms.  That is simply an insult to those who are there right now, doing the job every day. 

I have lived through the integration of women into the combat arms, and some of my best soldiers, and best leaders, have been women.  Let me assure you they are not with us because it is politically correct.  We don't fight with clubs and knives, we fight with very sophisticated combat systems.  We need the smartest, fittest, most motivated people we can get to take them into battle, and we would be foolish to exclude half the population from consideration for any reason.  Women are not, generally, as physically strong as men, but the days when a strong back and a weak mind were the complete desiderata for combat service are long, long gone.  Not every woman can be a soldier, but not every man can either, and those who want to try deserve the chance to prove themselves.  Those who make it have shown themselves to be smart, tough and motivated to get the job done.  This nothing new.  The Red Army that ground the vaunted (and all-male) Wehrmacht underfoot in 1944 had two million women in combat roles, including some of the top scoring Soviet snipers, tankers and pilots.  History provides many more examples, and I recommend you to their research. 

Trooper Blais is now part of that history, and you diminish her sacrifice when you imply that she shouldn't have been allowed to make it.  Karine wanted to be a tanker, and she became one through her own hard work and dedication.  She knew what the risks were and she took them anyway because she believed what she was standing up for for was worth it.  Karine died, but she didn't die as a victim of progressive politics.  She chose to be a warrior, she fought as a warrior, and she died as a warrior.  She deserves to be respected as a warrior, and she deserves to be remembered as one.  I think you owe her an apology.

-------------------------snip---------------------------

And, since I'm posting this in public, may I add my public condolences to Karine's family.  Les mots ne peuvent pas exprimer la perte, mais savent que vous avez eu une fille a etre fiere de.

12RBC Ad Sum!


----------



## leroi (5 May 2009)

AlphaCoy,

That is the best letter, ever .... !

The words are beautiful, heartfelt and mean so much more coming from someone with experience.

I see you are from the same Regiment as Trooper Blais? A sad loss for a proud Regiment. 

Hopefully, Mr. Coren's editor will also see the letter. 

I hope it's okay for a civvy to say to you Bravo Zulu!!


----------



## AlphaCoy (5 May 2009)

Thanks for the kind words leroi.  I'd like to report that Michael Coren had offered some response, but he hasn't.  I was going to write another letter after his second column but - what's the point?  He doesn't get it, he doesn't want to get it, and the words don't exist that will make him get it.  I share cavalryman's suspicion that the idea of female soldiers threatens his masculinity.  It would certainly explain a lot.  In any event he's unworthy of further effort or attention.

I have to say though, I'm very pleased by the solid support shown on here for our sisters-in-arms.  It wasn't always this way, and a lot of very good women had to fight very hard to win that respect - often at great personal cost.  If there's an upside to Coren's display of discriminatory ignorance, it's that it's shown how far the army has come on the issue.  Which isn't to say that it has no farther to go but, as a wise old warrior once taught me, direction is key. 

For the record, I'm not 12 RBC, I put up their motto for Karine.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 May 2009)

Well said AlphaCoy!!


----------



## ruckmarch (6 May 2009)

If you've listened to this guy's show ( the 2 bald guys ) on cfrb toronto in the afternoon, you will know he is full of carcas, and will say anything to get ratings.

He is very controversial on that show. He couldn't cut as a presenter in the UK, hence the reason he came here to pull a wool over people's eyes. If he had said that over there, the tabloids would have had him for lunch, you know how brutal they are over there.

Coren....Karen and the others, have more cohones than you'll ever have!  : If you don't like the way things are done here, I'll kindly pay your fare on BA back home.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 May 2009)

What a whiny crying little turd-bag this guy is,.......how could he actually have written *that* line?

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2009/05/09/9403591-sun.html
To air is human
Miffed ex-MP and author Garth Turner skips Michael Coren Show

By MICHAEL COREN
Last Updated: 9th May 2009, 6:53am

 It was certainly a first. In almost 11 years of hosting a nightly television program I have never had a guest simply fail to show up, without giving anyone any notice whatsoever. 

Failure to show means that more than a dozen people working directly on the program and 200,000 regular viewers were inconvenienced. 

I have to say, however, that with former MP Garth Turner I'm not particularly surprised. Turner has been on my show several times over the years, sometimes requesting the opportunity, and now that he has a book out, Sheeple, we were willing to give him a full hour of interview. Rather generous of us, actually. 

Last week in this column I wrote about the book, questioning one of its central claims. Turner writes in the book that another guest on the Michael Coren Show, Christian activist Charles McVety, had boasted while on the set of his direct and major influence over Stephen Harper. This was something neither I nor any of my crew heard, even after reviewing the tape, and something that McVety steadfastly denies. 

Turner had been booked for some weeks to appear on Tuesday. 
When he was late we called many times, usually reaching voice mail but once a woman who told us briskly that "Garth is busy." 

We contacted his publicist at Key Porter, arguably the most dynamic and successful publisher in Canada. The publicist was mortified, even though it was not her fault. She told us she and Turner had seen and discussed last week's column and he had said he would still do the show but if he decided otherwise he certainly would let us know. 
The program is recorded at 11.30 a.m. An e-mail, sent at 12:20 p.m., eventually arrived. "I was on my way, until I read his Sun column. Have a nice day. Garth." So contemptuous, so little regard for the men and women who work so hard to do their jobs. 
Also, so difficult to believe. 

We know Turner had actually read the column days earlier. So, as with the alleged comment made by Charles McVety that nobody else heard, is there an alternative world that only particularly gifted people such as Turner can perceive? 
Indeed the book itself, Sheeple, does read like an alternative history of the Conservative government told through the eyes of, well, someone who disagrees with most people about comments made, columns read and discussions had. Almost every major political issue is measured not by its effect on Canada but its effect on Turner. 

Rather like an MP moaning on the day war is declared that his breakfast is cold. 
Even before the book's publication, Key Porter reached an agreement with Canadian Press after the news agency had objected to a specific passage concerning Turner's coverage of their reporting. 

The publisher was obliged to send out "notification stickers" to booksellers to clarify. 
There were no stickers, however, to explain the incident last year when the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) profiled Turner. He was filmed knocking on the door of a constituent. A man answered and asked 

Turner about the carbon tax. The exchange was a good one and Turner moved on. The "constituent" later was revealed as the son of Turner's campaign manager, causing enormous embarrassment to CPAC and everyone else concerned. Except, it seems to Turner. 
Voters, readers, viewers, publishers, colleagues and even critics deserve better. 

Simply, they deserve the truth. 

michael.coren@sunmedia.ca 

Oh yea, it's because the world is all about Michael. :clown:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 May 2009)

The guy's a doofus and not worth the time we give him.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2009)

What a piece of shit article.


----------

