# The Inevitable Debate on Half Masting



## AmmoTech90 (22 Apr 2006)

In light of the fact that the media and members of this forum have already picked up on the fact that the flags on Parliament Hill will not be at half mast for the soldiers killed today (see http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/04/22/1546072-cp.html for the media), I would like to draw attention to CANFORGEN 069/06, promulgated on 11 Apr of this year.
Flags will still be half masted at the TF, the members home base, all establishments of the environment (Army/AF/Navy) that the member was a part of, and at NDHQ.

This, according to the CANFORGEN, is joint decision between DND and Heritage Canada.  Whether or not it was influenced by a politician or if a functionary realized that the nationwide half masting of flags for a soldiers death was a break with past tradition and brought it up to his bosses is irrelevant in my opinion.

A decision has been made, if someone (you) doesn't like it, do something constructive about it.  Send a letter to your MP, ask for the reasoning from Heritage Canada/DHH.  Give your arguments on why it is a bad idea.

Personally I can see both sides.
-Not lowering because it isn't tradition.  But that is the old, "we've always done it that way, it must be right".  About the only time I agree with this argument is with regards to ceremony...so I can understand it.  Were the flags at half mast during any of our previous wars?  I don't know but I'm sure some one here does.
-Lowering the flags so that it helps drive home the impact of what Canada as a whole is involved in to the general public.  Sad but true, seeing or hearing a report of a flag at half mast does drive home that Canadians are dying.

The fact that flags are not being lowered nationwide has opened up a can of worms that was made when the decision was taken to half mast Parliament Hill when a soldier was killed.  I don't know when or where this was done, but the fact that someone started doing it created the potential for this debate.  If the DHH/Heritage Canada decision had not been take then someone would have had to ask what I think is a very indelicate question:
At what rate of casualties do we stop half masting the flag on Parliament Hill?  The fact that a decision was made prevents anyone having to ask this question.  That is a good thing.  The member's unit, home station, and the national HQ all recognize their sacrifice.  They are remembered with all our other war dead on Remembrance Day.

D


----------



## greenhorn (22 Apr 2006)

I just wanted to say that I agree with you and both sides are valid and it is nice when someone makes a final decision.  I feel that it would be taxing on the emotions of the general Canadian Populus to see the flag at half mast a lot and therefore support for the mission would go down, even worse, and then the insurgents would see the weakened minds/hearts of the Canadians and hit us more and more thinking we will break and leave...nasty circle...true?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Apr 2006)

greenhorn said:
			
		

> I just wanted to say that I agree with you and both sides are valid and it is nice when someone makes a final decision.  I feel that it would be taxing on the emotions of the general Canadian Populus to see the flag at half mast a lot and therefore support for the mission would go down, even worse, and then the insurgents would see the weakened minds/hearts of the Canadians and hit us more and more thinking we will break and leave...nasty circle...true?



It is a tough one for sure. We all respect our fallen comrades but the fact is that we are at war. When at war the expectations of casualties can be that we will lose guys daily and then the flags would be at half mast all the time. 
It's kind of like when they had that hugh ceremony in Edmonton for the four guys killed in friendly fire. A lot of us saw this as a dangerous precedent. It was a great way to honour soldiers but could we expect to keep that standard up in light of the amount of casualities that we can expect to take in this campaign.

I think we all know that the real remembering is done by the Regiments and the comrades at arms. They will never be forgotten by those folks and that's what really counts. The spotlight of the media and national politicians (and flags) is a flash in the pan....our Regimental families are the ones who will hold the torchs high.


----------



## Amsdell (22 Apr 2006)

In my heart I feel that lowering the flags to half-mast is the right thing to do.  Rationally thinking, if the Parliament Hill flags are lowered for our troops then they should be lowered for our cops and firefighters who fall in the line of duty as well.  I think flag-lowering should be left to the individual cities (city halls, schools, etc) where the soldiers were from.  This would demonstrate the true support, the support of the people, for the fallen soldiers, and it would mean a whole lot more than a government PR gesture.


----------



## Haggis (22 Apr 2006)

We should stay the course with tradition for more than one reason.

Remembering the fallen has always happened nationally on Nov 11.  At that time, Canada stops to mourn.  Certainly their families, comrades and friends will remember them each year but, five years from today, 22 April, will Canada still stop to mourn this loss?  Does Canada stop to mourn on 17 April for four brave Patricias lost on Op APOLLO??  What of those lost in the Balkans, Cyprus and other missions?  Does Canada mourn thier day of passing?  

With each loss we add a date.  Where does it end or do we become a country perpetually mourning it's war dead? By extension, if our losses contunue to mount in this, or another, campaign, we could find ourselves with the flags perpetually at half mast.  

Lastly, I feel that the current policy, articulated in the CANFORGEN is the right way to go in the eyes of our citizens and, more importantly, the eyes of our enemies.  There is nothing the Taliban would like to see more than a crack in our resolve.  The fact the the Maple Leaf flies high and proud over our Peace Tower at this terrible time is a symbol that we are resolved, as a nation, to stay the course and take the fight to the enemy.  You cannot bow us.  You will not beat us.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2006)

Haggis.....excellent!!


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Apr 2006)

+1


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Apr 2006)

+1 Haggis, outstanding post. I hope the media doesn't try and make a political issue out of this...


----------



## Haggis (22 Apr 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> +1 Haggis, outstanding post. I hope the media doesn't try and make a political issue out of this...



Thanks.

Unfortunately they already have.  (http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=d370f3a7-1d30-416c-be41-76629218d552&k=20462)

Also, tonight's Global National on-line poll asked "Do you think the flag on Parliament Hill should fly at half mast when a Canadian soldier is killed?".  My kids asked me if we were going to half mast the flag in our yard.  I told them "no", and then explained why, which I posted here.  It was a good and timely family discussion as my son is going to the CFRC on Monday to try for Infantry.

In the same newscast Global also had an article on the Reservists serving in Afghanistan.


----------



## pbi (22 Apr 2006)

Well posted Haggis. Despite what I think were probably the best of intentions, IMHO we were sliding down a slippery slope with constant half-masting. We have good, long standing military traditions for honouring our dead, and we should respect them.

Cheers


----------



## Centurian1985 (22 Apr 2006)

Im afraid I dont share the same opinion - I see nothing wrong with having the flags at half-mast every time that a Canadian soldier is killed.  It would be a signal that no citizen could miss, and a reminder to every politician as to what our soldiers are doing overseas on their behalf.


----------



## Haggis (23 Apr 2006)

That's one of the cool things about living in a free country.  We can agree to disagree.

My  stays up.


----------



## Gayson (23 Apr 2006)

IMO, there is no need to bring the flag at half mast everytime a comrade is killed.

The real remembering occurs in the mess over a beer, or when reminiscing with buddies over old times.

Not when people drive by parliament hill and see the flag down.


----------



## derael (23 Apr 2006)

+1 Haggis

Excellent post.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Apr 2006)

+1 Haggis - bang on.


----------



## Sigs Pig (23 Apr 2006)

Haggis is bang on with his thoughts, but should he be saluted?   :tsktsk:


----------



## Haggis (23 Apr 2006)

Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> Haggis is bang on with his thoughts, *but should he be saluted? *   :tsktsk:



Please, no.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Apr 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Please, no.



I agree with you too. You should see the fire storm in some of the political blogs etc though. The Liberal partisans are making this as an issue to try and embarass the government. It's a no win situation unfortunately. It irks me that our fallen comrades will be the political footballs...they and the families deserve more respect than having partisan hacks use them in this way.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Apr 2006)

If there were a "member of the month" or "post of the month" award here on army.ca, I would nominate Haggis.  Well spoken, well thought out, just well, well-everything.


----------



## Recce41 (23 Apr 2006)

Here one fellas, the CPC phoned (Yesterday) Saturday. The lady spoke to my wife about if she would join the CPC party and does she support the CPC. Well, my wife holds no punches. She blased the lady about the flag. And told her she would never vote for the PCs again. The lady just said who cares about the soldiers and what makes them special. My well spoken wife told her I was in the military, she was in and my daughter would be in Aug. The lady hungup. Traditions are OK, but to just to show support.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Apr 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Here one fellas, the CPC phoned (Yesterday) Saturday. The lady spoke to my wife about if she would join the CPC party and does she support the CPC. Well, my wife holds no punches. She blased the lady about the flag. And told her she would never vote for the PCs again. The lady just said who cares about the soldiers and what makes them special. My well spoken wife told her I was in the military, she was in and my daughter would be in Aug. The lady hungup. Traditions are OK, but to just to show support.


As a voter, I wouldn't hold it against the government for not lowering flags everytime a soldier, sailor airman or airwoman passes in the line of duty. It would lose its significance if it were to happen everytime, as was said by others here.  There is tradition, and there are ways to mourn, but a constant state of mourning is not what our country needs.  
My $0.02 worth


----------



## M Feetham (23 Apr 2006)

I've read the posts in this thread, although since this is a home computer, I can't read the canforgen. Haggis I think you have the right of it. My opinion for what it is worth is simply if the fallen troops units were to half mast for a period, that would be acceptable. The rest of the country doesn't need to. As for personal flags at home, it is up to the individual in my mind. I would most likely only half mast if I knew the individual personally. I think any thing else would be a little empty. Those are my thoughts, thanks for listening.
Feet


----------



## geo (23 Apr 2006)

Imagine the US if they adopted a policy of going half mast at the death of their soldiers who fall in operations..... the nation as a whole would have it's flag at half mast all year long..... which would defeat the purpose of making the act "a special thing".... and instoring a mentality of "perpetual state of mourning" which would definitively sap the morale of the military AND the population as a whole.

The decisions spelled out in the Canforgen make plenty of sense to me.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Apr 2006)

Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> Haggis is bang on with his thoughts, but should he be saluted?   :tsktsk:



It's the closest thing to a "thumbs up" smiley that this board has - I used what I had to work with....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2006)

It's kind of a stretch tying this in, but even the Legion somewhat follows this pattern. Vets die every day, but only the Branch that they belong to lowers their flag, not every Legion in Dominion Command.


Hey!! Who's this Infanteer guy???


----------



## Sapper41 (23 Apr 2006)

I like the 'new' policy when it comes to lowering the flag on parliament hill.  To me it's very symbolic, at the local unit level we morn but at the national level we do not change our outward stance.  No taliban dirt bag is going to be rewarded by seeing our national flag lowered on the peace tower.  It's all about soldiering on and maintaining morale.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2006)

The flag on the Peace Tower, especially, and on most government buildings should be lowered to half mast only rarely: for the death of our head of state or a retired governor general, for example.  Not for politicians, not even for retired prime ministers, unless it is a state funeral.  We need not lower the flag for the deaths of foreign heads of state, including popes.

The flag should not be lowered to commemorate national calamities - in other words it should stay up on the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre.

The flags, all flags, on all government buildings should come down to half mast at 11:00 on 11 November, and they should stay down for the remainder day.

Individual departments and agencies, like DND, should be required to half mast the flags when their people die on service – that includes other flags in the precincts of parliament which should be lowered when MPs and senators die.

The flag on the peace tower is special – Canadians, the best Canadians, bar none, have been being killed in action for years and years.  They do not ask for national mourning and it should be reserved for the special day when we honour our nation’s absolute best: our war dead.


----------



## Recce41 (23 Apr 2006)

It was during WW2 that the Flag remained half staff during the war. It was only raised on 1 July for those yrs. From my wife's point, it does not have to be every flag across Canada. Just it is a form of honour given to our friends. It's lowered for members of Parliament when they pass. 
 In Britain they lower the Union Jack at morning, then it is raised for their soldiers. I'll hunt down the picture from the London Telegraph, I get.


----------



## Sailing Instructor (23 Apr 2006)

Can anyone confirm the following explanation for the origin of half-masting/staffing flags?:

(This only really applies to the navy, but....) When a death severely affected a ship's company, despite the best attempts by the XO, the mourning seamen could not concentrate well enough to do tiddley work and therefore sails, flags, et cetera were rigged messily.  Eventually, this disorder was ceremonialised into the half-masting of the flag.  This tradition seems to fit with other funereal notions like not shaving.

If this origin is correct, then it would seem that the most consistent application of the tradition would be to half-mast/staff in units affected most by the death (viz. the home unit, et al.).  The CANFORGEN seems to be consistent with this conclusion.

Regarding the idea that morale of the citisenry will drop with every half-staffed flag, I hate to go back to simplistic Clausewitzian conclusions, but it seems foolish to me not to realise that the policy-makers must see the deaths as worth the policy goals.  To worry about morale of the citisenry can be reduced to the conclusion that soldiers' deaths should not be reported lest parliament stops giving the crown money.  In a time when the CF is plagued by civilian ignorance (probably a plague of every generation but...) half-staffing gives at least a little information on part of the cost of a particular war.


----------



## Haggis (23 Apr 2006)

Sailing Instructor said:
			
		

> In a time when the CF is plagued by civilian ignorance (probably a plague of every generation but...) half-staffing gives at least a little information on part of the cost of a particular war.



Most Canadians get thier information from the media than from flags.  It's the MEDIA who are spinning this against the government of the day.


----------



## Wookilar (23 Apr 2006)

Like many others here, I agree with Haggis.

I, personally and professionally, like the direction given in the new CANFORGEN. It makes much more sense. I have been waging a running battle with some at my current unit (that are more important than I. Then again, who isn't more important right now?) on when the flag should be lowered. The directions given have taken away any possible strife inside our ranks, and solidarity inside the CF is so important.

The press and the politicals will make hay with the passing of our buds. That is, for better or worse, what politics and the press are all about during times of war. Anyone who thinks we are not used as political currency, dead or alive, is being a little naive.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (23 Apr 2006)

The flag on the peace tower is lowered for the death of a Royal or head of state as it should be. The rest should go down out of respect. I went down yesterday to my Legion as the Sgt st Arms and lowered ours....out of respect, it did set the tone in the town. They will all remember them and think hard at their great sacrifice.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Apr 2006)

Seems more support for the "not for every single one" school...

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/060423/n042379A.html

Highlights:

''Catherine Garrison, Halifax, whose 18-year-old son Chad has volunteered to go to Afghanistan early next year ... said she'd like to see the flags lowered across the country for combat casualties, but gave a more nuanced response to the saturated media coverage.  "The grieving process I think should be a private thing for the families of the individuals that have to suffer through it," said Garrison. "It certainly makes others aware of what's going on, but these are people's loved ones and the media and politicians have to respect that it's a great loss." ''

Lew MacKenzie ''said he was taken aback by full-page newspaper accounts Sunday screaming Death in the Desert and Day of Death in Afghanistan. "As a Patricia, you say to yourself, 'This is really going over the top,' ...  Those people who are sitting on the fence in their support for the mission - which they don't really understand - could well have their opinion affected by what's going on the last couple of days." 

Cliff Chadderton ''said the Bush administration has made the same mistake as an earlier White House with Vietnam, attempting to suppress information while it has brazened out the Iraq conflict at heavy public price.  "In the Canadian government, we have done the opposite ... Let's OK sending troops to Afghanistan - but if there are casualties, let's play it up as a national disaster. Well, it is a disaster, but it's not a national disaster.  Just simply tell the public the truth, instead of all this play-acting and 'should we put the flag at half staff or not." '' 

David Rudd, Cdn Inst of Strat. Studies:  ''If you have a tragedy like this and the government reacts to it with a shrug - saying, 'well, there's going to be more of that to come' - that doesn't do much to solidify or maintain existing public support for the mission ...But by the same token, you don't want to drift into a state of self-analysis or self-flagellation every time there's a casualty.''

BTW, here's the rules according to Heritage Canada:
http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/occasion_e.cfm


----------



## Franko (23 Apr 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> IMO, there is no need to bring the flag at half mast everytime a comrade is killed.
> 
> The real remembering occurs in the mess over a beer, or when reminiscing with buddies over old times.
> 
> Not when people drive by parliament hill and see the flag down.



Couldn't have said it better myself.

Regards


----------



## WayneDraper (24 Apr 2006)

I do not agree not having the flags lowered in Ottawa when ever any of our Military are killed in the field.  They gave their live for their country.  What is your opinion ???


----------



## Strike (24 Apr 2006)

Wayne, read all the posts.  I think the opinion is pretty clear.


----------



## 241 (24 Apr 2006)

I agree with the "Only the home unit/City (theres and the units)" but as well as the unit they where serving with ie: Task Force Afghanistan (I beleive thats what they are calling it), and if that and Rememberance day is not enough for the general public then perhaps a National Day of Mourning for the "Mission/War" type of thing.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2006)

To me, the most disgusting thing about this "story" is how people who wouldn't give us the time of day in the 1990s (i.e. the CBC, Liberal and NDP party) are suddenly so concerned about "not showing respect for the soldiers" and making other noises as if they were our comrades in arms.

Well, I am going to take what comes out of _their_ mouths as another cause of global warmning, and pay my respects on November 11 to all my forbearers and comrades in arms along with the rest of you.


----------



## Bart Nikodem (25 Apr 2006)

<sarcasm on>This has motivated me to contact my city hall to demand they stop half masting the city flag every time a police officer or firefighter dies in the line of duty as it only encourages criminals and fires. <sarcasm off>
Seriously though, if it's mandatory to half mast the Peace Tower flag when a serving High Commissioner, Ambassador or Senator dies in Canada, it should be mandatory for soldiers in the line of duty.
If Recce41 is right and the flag was half-masted during WW2, we should see how much of an effect that had on operations in Europe, so we can understand wether it would have an affect on the insurgents in Afghanistan.
All the best,
Bart


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Apr 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> It was during WW2 that the Flag remained half staff during the war. It was only raised on 1 July for those yrs.



Where does this come from?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 Apr 2006)

Aside from having had this conversation at least once already - in one of the casualty threads - wasn't there also a discussion on "half staff" vice "half mast"? 

My opinion, as stated the first time we discussed this, was in line with Haggis' and those that agree with him. In fact, I suggested that it was appropriate for home stations to lower their flags but not for a national showing.

It would be inappropriate, in my opinion, to give junior ranks and officer the same status as heads of state. Just because HM Queen Elizabeth II had to bow to public pressure to lower the flag on Buckingham Palace when Diana was killed, doesn't mean we have to...


----------



## redleafjumper (25 Apr 2006)

I do not believe that Recce41's statement regarding the  flag (Union Jack at that time) being at half mast during WW2 is correct.
In my opinion that would amount to striking one's colours and be missing the point.  The flag is the symbol of the country, it is inspiration for those who serve under it.  To rally the troops and the citizenry, the flag must be seen to be displayed proudly.  It is appropriate to recognize those who have fallen for Canada on Remembrance Day and to think of the fallen, collectively, every day. But to have our flag at half mast every time a soldier gets killed in war?  No.   

I agree with Haggis.


----------



## Bart Nikodem (25 Apr 2006)

> I do not believe that Recce41's statement regarding the  flag (Union Jack at that time) being at half mast during WW2 is correct.


Canada flew the Union Jack during WW2? That's news to me.
Mike,
If the ambassador from Burkina Faso died in Canada tomorrow, "the Flag on the Peace Tower is to be half-masted on the day of the funeral/memorial service or, should there be no such service scheduled, on the day that the remains depart Canada."
If that's the case, surely 4 Canadian soldiers killed in the line of duty deserve the same respect.
All the best,
Bart
P.S. I don't mean to pick on the ambassador from Burkina Faso, Her Excellency Juliette Bonkoungou, or the country of Burkina Faso, I just remember it as one of the places Bart Simpson called to see if toilets in the southern hemisphere flush the other way due to the Coriolis effect. Burkina Faso is actually in the northern hemisphere, but nevermind.


----------



## redleafjumper (25 Apr 2006)

Yes, Bart, the Union Jack was Canada's flag.  In World War 2, the Red Ensign was the flag many soldiers fought under, but the flag on the Parliament Buildings was the Union Jack.  The Red Ensign, though popular, was never adopted as Canada's National Flag.  There is some good information on Canada's flag here:  http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/historical-overview.html


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2006)

Just listening to a Talk Show on the Radio and the matter of the Flag has come up as one of the main topics.  The host is an Ex-military Member and he is talking about the Flag on the Peace Tower, and suggests that it have it's priorities raised to the point that it only be lowered on three occasions:  The Death of the Monarch, the Death of the Serving Prime Minister, and on 11 November for Remembrance Day.  Of course there may be two others, the Governor General's death and the death of the Chief Justice, (the second in command to the Governor General.)  

A lady just phoned in and suggested that there be a flagpole erected at the National War Memorial over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier that would fly the Flag at Half Mast every day in respect and remembrance of all the members of the Canadian Forces who have sacrificed their lives in service of Canada.

As for the lowering of the Flag, other than the Peace Tower, it is still up to the Province, Municipality, Organization, etc, to carry out their own policies in the lowering of their own Flags.  CF Bases will carry out the policy of lowering Base and Unit Flags as these occasions arise, as will Royal Canadian Legions and other Service organizations.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Apr 2006)

Audio of interview with MGen (Ret'd) Lewis McKenzie on CFRA, Ottawa, Tuesday morning: while he supports the flag decision, he doubts the wisdom of banning the media's covering the coffins' return at Trenton.
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Lewis_MacKenzie_Apr25.mp3

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## gnplummer421 (25 Apr 2006)

Although I didn't read any of the previous posts on this subject, I still want to put my 2 cents in.

 In light of the fact that our Government decided to do this without any regard for debate or others opinion, I'm going to go ahead and buy my own Flagpole and put a Canadian flag on it. Then *I * will decide when the flag is at half mast, and pay my own respects. The Government can kiss my **s. And God help the son of a b*&$#h who comes on my property and tries to give me grief about it.

There...I have vented..phew!

Cheers,

Gnplummer


----------



## George Wallace (25 Apr 2006)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> Although I didn't read any of the previous posts on this subject, I still want to put my 2 cents in.



Perhaps you ought to read the previous posts so that you don't swallow both feet up to your knees.


----------



## gnplummer421 (25 Apr 2006)

Sometimes I like to throw my raw emotion out there before I read..but I see your point.

Thanks.


----------



## Hot Lips (25 Apr 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> That's one of the cool things about living in a free country.  We can agree to disagree.
> 
> My  stays up.
> 
> ...


----------



## Matty B. (27 Apr 2006)

What do the people on this forum think about parliament not lowering its flags when a soldier dies in combat (except on Remembrance Day) or the legislation that the ceremony marking the return of soldiers' bodies to Canada will no longer be recorded for public dissemination? 

I know that this board mostly supports a Conservative government, but I did notice that the University of Toronto (mostly a Liberal or NDP supporting organization from what I perceive) did lower its flags in honour of the four soldiers who died last week... just curious to see what everyone else thinks about this new Conservative legislation.


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Apr 2006)

Matty - there is already one thread open on this, and it is probably being mentioned in a number of other threads as well...

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42481.0.html


----------



## The_Falcon (27 Apr 2006)

Saw this article and once again it shows the hypocrisy of the liberal party.  They are under the impression that the decision to raise/lower the peace tower flag should be made by the whole of parliament and not the government of the day.  I guess when they where in power, it was okay, but now its not.  One more reason why this whole flag/flap is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the Convervatives and paint them in a rather negative light.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/04/27/1553813-cp.html



> Opposition MPs question government's power over Peace Tower flag protocol
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - The power to lower the Peace Tower flag to half-mast should rest with all parliamentarians through the Speaker, not with the prime minister, the defence minister or the Heritage Department, opposition MPs said Thursday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2006)

So MP Kenney "chortled" did he?  Interesting verb selection in a straight news piece.  Just "style" I suppose.


----------



## Wookilar (27 Apr 2006)

I'm just wondering which military families it "has raised the ire of" and why none of them are quoted.

As a matter of fact, I'd be surprised if they actually asked any of our families about it (Mr. Dinning's letter aside. Curious as to whether the politicos received permission to even read his letter in the House in the manner that they did).

Kudos to the CBC for at least publishing some of the comments from our guys on the ground in 'Astan.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2006)

Another opinion by Dr Granatstein:



> *Honouring the Dead Without Hypocrisy*
> J.L. Granatstein
> 
> Is there no limit? Is there nothing politicians will not do to capitalize on the misery of others and to obscure their own role in that misery?
> ...



Reading this, there are two complimentary courses of action:

1. Bombard the press and opposition MPs with mail. email and phone messages calling them out for goulishly attempting to exploit our dead. *Use the same tone and content of Dr Granatstein's article so you are taken seriously*.

2. Discuss our mission and goals in Afghanistan to as large an audience as possible. People don't know or understand what is going on over there, and credible information will help the general public to understand and generate support. (Note there are some places like some Universities or Rabble.ca where this approach will not work, but choose your targets accordingly).

Help for option 2:

Ali A. Jalali, “The Future of Afghanistan,” Parameters (Spring 2006), available from http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/06spring/jalali.htm 

Mark Sedra, “Four Reasons why Canada is in Afghanistan,” The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA Commentary 4-2006), available from http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_Commentary/Mark_Sedra_Commentary_4-2006.pdf 

Col (Ret’d) Brian MacDonald, “Is it Time to Cut and Run from Kandahar?” The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA Commentary 2-2006), available from http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_Commentary/CDA%20Commentary%20Time%20to%20Cut%20and%20Run.pdf 

Gen (Ret’d) Paul Manson, “Could Canada Pull out From Afghanistan? A ‘What if’ Scenario,” The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA Commentary 1-2006), available from http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_Commentary/CDA%20Commentary%20Manson%20on%20Kandahar.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Apr 2006)

Let me see, they allowed the media to film the departure ceremony, but barred the arrival ceremony and refused to lower one flag on the Peace tower. Talking about creating a story so the media can report on it.


----------



## Yrys (1 Apr 2008)

it's an old thread, (aucune réponse n'a été postée dans ce fil depuis au moins 100 jours) but same subject :


Commons poised to vote on flag-lowering motion



> OTTAWA  -- The House of Commons appears set to adopt a motion calling for the flag to be lowered on the Peace Tower whenever a Canadian soldier is killed
> in Afghanistan. And the Conservative government appears set to ignore the vote result.
> 
> The Commons votes Wednesday on a Liberal motion that would require a moment of silence and a lowering of the flag for one day following the death of a Canadian soldier.
> ...



Link


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Apr 2008)

The big question here is does the nation mourn, or is the nation in mourning when any soldier dies in the line of duty?

We also commemorate all our soldiers that have died fighting the good fight every Nov 11.

To me I say no to this motion.  The nation no more goes into mourning when Pte Bloggins dies than it does when Jim-Bob falls into the shredder down at the plant.

And each of them has their day to be remembered, Remembrance Day for the Soldier, and National Day of Mourning (April 28th) for the worker.


----------



## James (1 Apr 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> We should stay the course with tradition for more than one reason.
> 
> Remembering the fallen has always happened nationally on Nov 11.  At that time, Canada stops to mourn.  Certainly their families, comrades and friends will remember them each year but, five years from today, 22 April, will Canada still stop to mourn this loss?  Does Canada stop to mourn on 17 April for four brave Patricias lost on Op APOLLO??  What of those lost in the Balkans, Cyprus and other missions?  Does Canada mourn thier day of passing?
> 
> ...



I was just reading about this issue on CTV, and I've always sort of been sitting on the fence. But I think Higgins made an excellent argument a couple years ago when this was first discussed.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Apr 2008)

I do not think that the flag on the Peace Tower should be half-masted each time a Canadian Soldier is killed overseas.  IMHO, it opens a huge can of worms about the relative worth of each death within the CF.  If we half-mast for a combat casualty, do we also half-mast for traffic deaths in theatre?  How about for the death of soldier killed in training for an overseas mission?  What if the death occurs while on HLTA? Or if a SAR tech is killed in the line of duty in Canada? How about a sailor falling overboard while serving on a HMC Ship in the Gulf?  It gets weird quickly, if you ask me. 

We have Remembrance Day. It is better than good enough for me.


----------



## FoverF (1 Apr 2008)

I remember one year at the U of Calgary the flag was half-masted probably half the time. I don't know what the criteria were, but I believe a death in the student body (comparable in size with CF's Reg Force) resulted in the flag being at half-staff. I found that pretty lame, because   is supposed to go _on top_. That's why there's a flagpole there in the first place. 

The problem is that I think the government _should_ still have the ability to decide when to half-mast the flag, and not be stuck with just 'Death of monarch/GG, death of PM, Nov 11'. 

If some unspeakable tragedy happens at home or abroad, the Canadian government shouldn't have to wait for a session of parliament, or senate approval, or some ridiculous thing in order to express the condolences of Canadians. I think it should be entirely within the discretionary powers of the PMO, or GG, or _somebody_ who can act like a grown-up and be responsible with it (maybe not GG, or PMO then...)...

Okay, Okay, I'll do it. ;D 
But I better get a pension out of it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2008)

For the Opposition, it has less to do with honouring soldiers, and all to do with trying to make the CPC look like unfeeling louts. I hate it when they use soldiers for political points. I also agree more with the CPC point of view, than I do with any of the others.

We have Nov 11. That's what it's for, we don't need to see it at any other time.


----------



## geo (2 Apr 2008)

let's just imagine what things would have been like if we had half masted our Flag for every death during WW2.
The country would have been in mourning from 1939 through to 1945.  Does that make sense?  NO!

The country was at war and the country is at war.  We should be steadfast in our resolve and the Flag should fly from the highest flagpole - for all to see.


----------



## James (2 Apr 2008)

CTV has a poll on its website regarding this issue. With more than 10,000 votes cast so far, 58% say the flag should be lowered each time a soldier is killed.

View poll

 ???

I find it kind of funny. In the article on CTV's website (and in this discussion), it's clear members of the CF do not want the flag lowered... so why is it even a discussion?


----------



## geo (2 Apr 2008)

It s always a question of context.  
Prior to asking the question , CTV had an obligation of providing context.  Without context, this survey is 100% useless and means nothing.

Putz!


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Apr 2008)

The motion has passed in the House of Commons.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080401/flag_peacetower_080402/20080402?hub=TopStories


----------



## James (2 Apr 2008)

Wow! Did you happen to read some of the comments posted at the end of the article?  :-X


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Apr 2008)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The motion has passed in the House of Commons.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080401/flag_peacetower_080402/20080402?hub=TopStories


The motion was non-binding and most likely won't be put into effect.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> The motion was non-binding and most likely won't be put into effect.



Yup. CPC already said they were going to ignore it.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Apr 2008)

Awesome (as usual) article regarding this topic by Peter Worthington in the Toronto Sun.

Lowering the flag for soldiers dilutes its importance


----------

