Thank you for making it as clear as can be why the media has no business in this issue. As a currently serving member of the armed forces (22+years) who has been on deployments I can speak for myself and my spouse (also a military member) when I say that I agree with the governments decision to limit the press. I honestly beleive is that the press is acting like a scorned child who cannot get their way after being used to getting it for so long. This flag and access debate only tarnishes what is a solemn occassion for the military and the families concerned.

Is it possible that the MSM is stalking Canadians on the streets of Canada?
I saw part of the CTV report last night. They stated that they took the pictures through the 'barbed wire'--when obviously it was a chain link fence that had been in place for years--but 'barbed wire' sounds so much more sinister. As usual, the MSM made themselves the centre of the story--and this is showing respect for the fallen soldiers?
I don't think we can begin to imagine how the MSM has played with our minds over the last 13 years. Talk about subliminal advertising--the Liberal MSM are masters at it.

Vultures. All under the idea that Canadians have a 'right' to know.

What else can we expect from the media?
It's damned if you do, or damned if you don't.
Had Harper allowed complete access, they would have more grist for the 'Why are we in Iraq supporting the USA and allowing our poor Canadian boys to be killed' meme. Never mind the fact that they are soldiers and they know what they are getting into. Closing access gives rise to the 'It's public and we should be allowed access... to everything'. Don't forget Mr. Zolf's 'We made you, so you owe us' statements.

Good move for Harper. Privacy for the families should come first.

So what's the point here? Because this anon woman didn't like the media coverage of a a private funeral in which she was involved, we are supposed to conclude that the government is right to ban the media from a public ceremony?

My heartfelt sympathies to you & your family, this letter only reinforces what the member's & families of our forces have been saying & our current government has been listening. The media has not done it's homework & has not respected the wishes of fallen comrades families. Thankyou for your letter & thankyou to kate for posting it.
And finally thankyou to all who have served.

Thank you so much for this, Kate. It says exactly what is right - that the MSM have absolutely no right to be there. Nor, does the public have any right to insist that the Peace Tower flag be lowered -ignoring that the flag IS lowered at the Defence Headquarters, military bases, and hometowns.

Interesting though, is that if you choose to blow yourself up in the washroom in a Tim Hortons, endangering the general public in the process, your anonymity is unquestioned.(for the sake of the family!)

Why the MSM are such vultures when a member of the military dies is beyond me. The public does not demand to know! I have never met anyone in my life who is not repulsed by their tactics in cases like this. Journalism? Not likely. Voyeurism is a better description. Has anyone ever done a poll about this issue?

Forever seared in my mind is images of the last soldier's coffin homecoming. The media, who are claiming that they have been "respectful" zeroed in on a widow who had draped herself sobbing on the coffin of her husband. She was distraught when theyhad to remove her to put his body in the hurst. The disgusting talking heads commented on this and then instead of showing the military procession over and over they showed this young woman's grief over and over.

I was absolutely horrified at their callous disregard for this woman's grief and the fact that the media thought we whould be intruding on this. They constantly zoom in on sobbing family members, fatherless children and sobbing wives. Then chase them down for "comment". How sick is that!!!! The media are just the pimps for large corporations to sell advertising and make profits.

As you say Kate - the media does NOT speak for me. They are NOT the voice of the people. OUr elected officials are the voice of the people and the media's opinion on those voices is a violation of our rights to get the truth.

I say thank God we finally have a government who is not afraid to make the tought decisions that are not based on polls. The media is franticallh now chasing around getting "opinions" to bolster their macabre self serving position.

It is all about THEM. The media in Ottawa firmly and truly believes that THEIR opinion is the only one that counts and politicians , the choice of the people, are simply actors in their fictionalized reporting of events.

Sorry for the rant. I have buried family members and my grief was not made into a sidewho. I expect no less for the families of our brave soldiers.

Someone email this link to Bill Graham, who was scrumming the virtuous media yesterday in the HOC lobby.

"Public ceremony"

Riiiiiigghhhhht.

"Oh look hon, they're carrying a coffin with a Canadian flag on it."

"Yes, you see all kinds of things when you drive into CFB Trenton, a *public* place. Now where on this base can we get an ice cream?"

Ya Jason ,Thats exactly the point.DUH!!

If anyone saw the CBC lead story last night on the national, you would be as angry as I am. Their lead was not about the return of the soldiers, but the fact they (The press) had been excluded from the return. It has to be the most disrespectful piece of journalism ever done. As well their attempts to show the dead bodies of those soldiers in their damage/destroyed vehicle night after night after night is as distasteful.

As a former reservist who was fortunate enough to work along side our regular forces, I hope the Liberals and the NDP start learning that respect must be paid to the families and the soldier’s wishes above their political wants or needs.

Hey if they were blown to pieces would Mr. Graham’s or Mr. Layton’s family want to see that over and over again on the news. Would they want someone making political gestures or protesting outside their funerals.

It is vulgar and horrific that these soldiers sacrifice is being used and abused in such horrible ways.

So Jason Cherniak is a troll judging by his comments. Show a little class, Jason. Try to restrain yourself from participating in the NecroPolitik of the screaming media and the left.

Kate I apologize in advance for feeding this troll.

news@ctv.ca

That's where you write to complain. Also - call the local affiliate and yell at them, too.

Why not let the next of kin decide whether or not to allow the press?

Jason Cherniak, you are an idiot.

You wrote:
"So what's the point here? Because this anon woman didn't like the media coverage of a a private funeral in which she was involved, we are supposed to conclude that the government is right to ban the media from a public ceremony?"

Tell me how the grief of a young widow and her children is in any way, shape, or form PUBLIC?
The Conservative Government simply refuses to do what the Liberal Party often did; Use dead soldiers as a photo-op. Being a Liberal, Jason obviously does not understand the difference between PRINCIPLE and political-expediency, in fact, to a Liberal mind they are one and the same. Keep trolling Jason, I'm sure there will be a lucrative pay-cheque coming your way if you stick with the Liberals until they are back in power.

start sending this letter to every advertiser on CTV & CBC.

Go their website, find the consumer feedback link and tell them tis is why you will not watch CTV or CBC and you will boycott teh products of advertisers on those networks.

Thank you for posting this Kate.
And thankyou to the writer.

I did not like the pissing match that Mr. Harper and the press were in but if it was the price for having a responsible Conservative government, who cares. No one cared besides the press and the blogosphere. It was petty and stupid but it was tolerable.

Now the press has carried their little war onto ground they have no business on. To pitch their little circus tent on the burial grounds of our fallen war dead is a disgrace I will never forgive them for.

I have written CTV and informed them that I will no longer be watching NewsNet or their national news. I am so angry.

"So what's the point here? Because this anon woman didn't like the media coverage of a a private funeral in which she was involved, we are supposed to conclude that the government is right to ban the media from a public ceremony?"

The point is that when citizens can't govern themselves, the government's job is to govern them. And when the media can't control themselves and start to do things that are reprehensible to all other standards of decency (as this widow said, barging in on strangers' funerals) then perhaps the government should stop them from being such asses.

Freedom of the press is not the same as absolute freedom. The media has a freedom to report, but people have a right not to be stalked. When the media gets this hungry over private moments (especially the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice) they become no better than paparazzi.

Since you seem to have no problem, answer me this. How would you feel if you had 20 to 30 strangers pressing in on you and flashing cameras at the funeral of your mom, dad, brother or sister?

Oh, I'm sure you would have no problem.

But, let's face it. The left does not believe in family "values" so why should a grieving family's wishes be respected?
One such person told me that she felt the whole idea of "families" should be done away with since it then would make it easier for single moms and children from broken families. Their entire phylosophy is if it makes it easier it has to be better.(The exception is their rights have priority, no matter how dificult they make it for others).
Maybe Harper will have to "point his finger" at" the news reporter to be allowed in to report the event to the public, based on their behavior at the last news media event. If they act like spoiled children, treat them like spoiled children.

By signing up for the military, our soldiers have agreed to do a job other Canadians do not take on.

What do they then become, some kind of 'property' of the Canadian public?

Does the family of that soldier then become public property, too?

The e-mail writer has expressed how uncomfortable it was to become the focus, and how the media broke the terms of the agreement with them.

What stays with this writer was that *lack* of respect given to her family.

The government has not refused media access to *every* step of the process of remembering those who died!

They have asked, only, that for those families who have wanted privacy when the coffins return to Trenton, that they be given privacy.

We all know how the media disrespected that yesterday.

For those families who want the media there, for every step, will know that other families do not.

The military will have to sort that out.

The media have already shown what matters to them.

While it is true there is no "I" in team, it is becoming apparent there is a lot of "me" in media. This farce is all about the MSM and their entitlement to shape the world. There is probably a camera crew in Toronto outside the coroner's office ready to get the scoop as these soldier's remains are taken for autopsy.

While looking at the CTV site to see what was so important that the media couldn't stay away (more paparazzi photos than photojournalism), I did see some video links to a W5 imbeded reporter on patrol in Afghanistan. It was, for the most part, pretty good although I imagine all the soldiers talking about hunting, finding and killing the enemy probably gave lefties a kniption.

Take note here people - Stephen Harper is willing to take a hit from the media over this and the flags.

Some people are calling it an attempt to conceal the fact that we are receiving casualties from Afghanistan - cover it up how? How many Canadians look at the flag at parliament for casualty reports? And banning the media simply ensures they'll speak about nothing else.

People say they want our politicians to be honest and forthright. Then they blast them for saying things like they're not going to reduce gas taxes, or they'll repeal income tax cuts (that one was during an election!) or they're not going to lower the flags at parliament or the media should respect the privacy of grieving families. Instead of looking for excuses to hate the government, try to see the bigger picture.

It is not the press, or the public, or even the Prime Minister who should make these decisions. It is the military and their families. In this case, 3 families wanted privacy, and one did not. They got privacy. Get over it - we still get all the details without the photo op.

End rant.

the right to know what? they reported on the circumstances of the deaths. what possible value could reporting on the funerals hold other than crass sensationalism?

How long until:

a) the goofs in the media start demanding to be present at the autopsies.
b) the goofs in the Liberal party back them up.
c) Liberal-lovin' goofs with unread blogs start backing them too.

Shall we watch whether all of these so called supporters of our troops wear red on Fridays? If the media thinks they are so almighty important to "shape" this country how many of them are even promoting the soldier's family initiative for Red Fridays?

What a wonderful story that would be! Canadians showing their respect . That seems to be what the media thinks their Liberal/NDP/entitled media rant is all about.

But, oh, maybe THAT story would not be about bashing Prime minister Harper. And THAT is the all encompassing mission - so the press gallery can PROVE they are the boss and help get rid of Conservatives who actually think elected officials should make the decisions.

The media no longer even "pretends" to be impartial. Take for example Jim Travers calling our Prime Minister, the leader of our country, our representative on the national and world stage " a doughboy in a fishing vest."

I agree - time to contact advertisers.

Unfortunately the liberal media did not pursue the theft of tax dollars by the Liberal party with the same vigor that they pathetically exhibit in these circumstances.

you've produced an email from a woman who supports the media ban. we've heard from parents and soldiers who don't. i attend to agree with chreniak, how does this post justify the govt's media ban? and to "Al" who states "let's face it. The left does not believe in family "values" so why should a grieving family's wishes be respected?" It seems to me after visiting this blog many times that the "left" consists of anyone who doesn't support the agenda of the current govt carte blanche. I have voted PC, Liberal and even NDP in my lifetime. Political dogmatism is too restrictive for me. However, I can't ever see myself supporting Harper. Someone tell my wife and kids that I don't support family values.

My brother was killed in the service 25 years ago, If CTV or any other reporters would have showed up at the cemetery or inside the funeral home, or anywhere near us, we would have buried THEM.

My family was contacted, invited, and did also meet with the "Fifth Estate TV Show" after the ceremony to explain our plight, which they thankfully aired.

Suicide bombers at Pravda go all out
I hope you all saw it on Pravda last night. It was television terrorism.

I did a bit on it at Duke's Place
Disgusting. I am sure they had to dig around to find witnesses to their cause. Right to see other peoples coffins on TV? Really!

Last night CTV hit a new low. They set up a media van outside CFB Trenton, put a camera on the extendable mast on top of the van and broadcast live coverage of the repratriation ceremony. What a bunch of scrumbags, they get denied access to the proceedings so they pull a stunt like this? All in the guise of "honouring" our troops. Yeah right, how bout honouring the mission these men saw fit to die for?

Davidson,

If you agree that there are both families who don't mind the media being around and there are families who do mind the media being around, don't you think it would be prudent to keep the media away when there are multiple families around at a military/family ceremony and allow those who do not mind the media to invite the media to their own private ceremonies?

Is there a problem with simply erring on the side of caution for those who do not want their grieving to be fodder for the masses? What is so wrong with being compassionate for what are generally (and pretty much universally) private matters?

To the anonymous widow: thank you for sharing this and we feel your pain ...

To Jason: You are an idiot and callous troll.. Let us know as soon as a member of your family dies of a tragic death and we will alert the media to have a 24 hour stalking of your life . Afterwards, can you please share with us your pain and anguish and maybe we'll have sympathy for idiots like you ...

Did you notice on CTV's when they had the camera - it was not the flag draped casket they were trying to zoom in on. It was the grieving family members. I was disgusted to see they did in fact air footage of family members - one lady in sunglasses was being supported by a gentleman and followed by some others. Their complaint was not that they could not SEE the coffin - it was that they could not get close enough to the families to exploit their suffering.

CTV in fact betrayed their right to privacy. Watch them make a circus of closeups of sobbing widows and parents and children at the memorial services and funerals.

If it is the coffins they want to show us, as they claim, we saw them in detail in Afghanistan when 3,000 miliary honoured them in a very moving service.

Nope - ratings, which affect advertising sales, call for human suffering - if it bleeds it leads. Sharks. Ambulance chasers.

"Why not let the next of kin decide whether or not to allow the press?"

What do you do if more than one family is involved and one family says "OK" and another "No way"? With the current policy, if families wish to have media involvement they may do so at the individual funeral. Those who do not, are then able to maintain privacy.

I can't imagine trying to deal with the loss of my husband and plan a funeral while the phone is ringing off the hook with strangers asking for "a comment on how I feel". No doubt, the media is boorish enough to ask family to comment on the deployment. I can hear it now, "I'm sorry for your loss Mrs X but I'd like to know if this terrible tragedy has in any way affect your opinion on the deployment?”

And yes, if some guy who torches himself in public is entitled to "privacy" then so are our soldiers.

When the media give equal play to the good things our soldiers are doing, maybe I'll have a bit of pity for their lack of access.

I saw CTV's coverage, and I think it was adequate (although whiny with regards to the media "ban"). Zoomed in shot of a flag-draped coffin. That's all I need to know a soldier died.

Last night on the CTV National News, Lloyd Robertson asked Craig Oliver for his thoughts on all of this. It was always boggles me when one media personality asks another to comment on the behaivour of the pack, and predictability Oliver stated - with a straight face - that the media "never" stick microphones in the faces of the grieving military families. He claimed that the media are "always" respectful.

I call bullshit on him.

CTV, CBC, etc. show us the clips, proving the "respect" the media shows in these and other similar situations. I dare you.

Just to respond to comments of a couple of previous posters, there is no "media ban". Families are welcome to invite the press to the family's funeral. It is the military funeral where the press are not invited.

Also, a question for you. How do you differentiate between the main stream media and paparazzi? I feel that the MSM used to be much more respectful of people's privacy. Now I think the lines are blurred. Wikipedia defines paparazzi as follows:
"Paparazzi is a plural term (paparazzo is the singular form) for photographers who take candid photographs of celebrities, usually by relentlessly shadowing them in their public and private activities."

I do not agree with the "grief hounds" but I do agree that the public should be made aware of each and every sacrifice made by our soldiers. I worry that this media ban will eventually lead to a permanent gag order concerning all the Afghan deaths and events. Gen Hillier is already under one, he cannot make any statements unless they go through the PM's office now. I'm a slippery slope kinda gal.

Unfortunately you can "read" about a death, but it does not really set in, until there is a coffin with a flag draped over it splashed across a page. Showing the family is not necessary. I know that the media is all about shock value, I wish they would have some respect for them.

I come from a military family, I married the military and the inlaws are all military. They have the same opinion I am expressing here. The flag should be lowered, the same flag they died for and under. If fat cats in parliment who served 30 years ago drop dead from natural causes get that same respect, then so should the men and women who died for our country.

When there were major events at Cold Lake, the base used to have a base photographer cover the event and a lot of times, those pics were made available to the media upon request.
Does anyone know if Trenton had a base photographer at the ramp ceremony? To me, using photos taken by a base photographer would provide a balance between covering the event and providing friends and family a degree of privacy and dignity.
What it wouldn't provide for is camera crews sticking cameras into the faces of cying family members.
I'm just wondering if there was a base photographer

Jason is such a genius. The key word in his statement is PRIVATE.

I guess in Jason's world press freedom means throngs of reporters have the right, even when it's in poor taste, to invade a greaving family gathering no matter the circumstances.

I was watching global news last night and all I heard was them whining how the Cdn. gov't. is following the American example of not allowing the filming of caskets being unloaded off of airplanes. Therefore, if the msm doesn't like it, then it must be 'American' style.

The General Hillier muzzling story was invented by a reporter who is now the new head of the Parliamentary Press gallery. In her article she claimed that "an anonymous source" and "according to an un-named official" said that the General had to clear all of his speeches with the PMO. Good reporting huh! Unimpeachble sources so you can make up a story. The fact that both General Hillier and the Prime MInister denied this was . of course, debunked as this reporter's anonymious un-named sources were her own fiction just like Jean Chretien's anonymous fictional homeless person.

In fact, Gen. Hillier said he does not WRITE his speeches - he just has notes on little cards if anything at all. The process is the same as it has always been - even with the Liberals. he lets the PMO know when and where he is speaking. This makes sense since the media will ask the minister or PM to comment at times on his speeches.

Never doubt the duplicity of the press. And, for those who are media savvy there seems to be a lot of anonymous un-named sources these days - sometimes masked as "high ranking Conservative", or long-serving government beurocrat or conservative supporter who are making all of these "comments" which, surprise, mirror the reporter's own fictionalized storyline.

As a former journalist I also know that if you have a storyline and ask enough people you can always, always find someone who will agree with you.

It is yellow journalism at its worst and this country, or at least our two major TV networks and a few of the multi-billion dollar media monopolies are a classic case of "freedom of the press" damaging the entire fabric of our country.

Advertisers speak louder than any of us can though. Time to fight back??

"Gen Hillier is already under one [a publication ban], he cannot make any statements unless they go through the PM's office now."

Not correct - as the PMO has stated, and Hillier's ofice has confirmed, the PMO asked Hillier to advise them of the subjects he would be covering in public statements so that Harper could be prepared to respond if asked about them. The PMO did not assert any right to determine the content of Hillier's statements, or even to be made aware of the specific comments in advance. Hillier's office was quite adamant that he would refuse either request in any event.

Try to keep up.

These people (MSM) are not vultures, but swine.

I heard Lewis Mckensie on the Radio in Ottawa here the other day expaining that there was (i beieve he said) 27 killed in Kosovo. The MSM did not give a damn then about those losses.

Don't these grief-mongers arms ever get tired of self-flagulating ? Can't I take over ?

It was just two days ago that Kate posted the rules for making comment on this site, and people were still making remarks about those rules yesterday.

Although Jason C.'s remarks here were unfortunate, what he did does not constitute "trolling." It would be sad to see the accusation of 'trolling' become a club to stifle dissenting opinion here. And I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that was the intent of posting the rules on Monday.

A moving letter from a military widow.
I suspect many thousands will read and appreciate her point of view because of the internet and high traffic sites such as SDA.
Will the widow's point of view also make the nightly news on MSM?
Not likely, simply because MSM needs to keep the issue alive in order for the media itself to remain a large part of the story.
"Look folks we are shut out by the nasty conservatives from showing grieving family close-ups."
A classic case of the media creating a selfserving story where one does not need to be.

Or, how about media voyeurism?
• a person (entity) who enjoys seeing the pain or distress of others.

Most reasonable people will appreciate the privacy afforded the families of the initial arrival of the fallen.

"the right to know what? they reported on the circumstances of the deaths. what possible value could reporting on the funerals hold other than crass sensationalism?"

What value indeed? The MSM seems to now be against military involvement in Afghanistan, although they were not when the Liberals committed us there. Now they perpetuate a defeatist mentality by sensationalizing the deaths and injuries our troops.

I've been to a few funerals in my day. I also remember the bodies each night coming home from Vietnam. I watched diligently as people I grew up with were over there.
This is what Bush/Harper doesn't want people to see. But I don't remember any camara crews filming the individual families burying their sons, maybe because there were to many.

I agree that we should see the CASKETS coming home, We know who the people are who fill these boxes and what they did is that not enough?

But I've been to enough funerals and don't want to be a part of someone else's everyday.

I'm with ..Fred and Lakota..
It's time to go after the advertisers.!

I think each family should be assumed to want privacy at this time. The military should protect the family as much as possible. Perhaps their names should not be released until after the burial.
I do think the public should know about everyone who dies for their country. It is our duty at least to know these people and how they served. This information and media of the soldier's coffin should be made public, with permission of the family, after the burial. It is not essential we be made aware of who these people are immediately, but perhaps two weeks later.

The other thing the letter alludes to is that the military doesn't follow up with the family afterward. Any and all questions the family has regarding the circumstances surrounding a military death should be answered.
I love the fact that she got a letter and phone call from the Governor General, I hope that is standard proceedure for all GG's. A letter and phone call from the Minister of Defense should also be standard practice.
I hope that all those injured in the line of duty serving their country are also WELL taken care of until they are able to take care of themselves, however long that takes.

The homeless, volunteer, denizens of the Presstitutes Club of Parliament Hill:

CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY

ROOM 607, 150 WELLINGTON ST.
PIÈCE 607, 150, RUE WELLINGTON
TELEPHONE (613) 992-6517
FAX (613) 996-2076
KIP 5A4

APRIL - 2006 - AVRIL

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - COMITÉ EXÉCUTIF
tr VALIGN=TOP>
PRESIDENT -PRÉSIDENT
Stephanie Rubec
232-6078
Sun Media, 705-150 Wellington
VICE-PRESIDENT - VICE-PRÉSIDENTE
Yves Malo
234-3357
TVA, 507-165 Sparks
TREASURER-TRÉSORIER
Isabelle Rodrigue
231-8641
La Presse Canadienne, pièce 350-N, Édifice du Centre
SECRETARY - SECRÉTAIRE
Elizabeth, Thompson
751-3322
Montreal Gazette, 500-150 Wellington
DIRECTORS - DIRECTEURS

Jim Bronskill
236-4122
Canadian Press, 165 Sparks, 8th Floor
Hélène Buzzetti
232-1138
Le Devoir, 301-150 Wellington
Luigi Della Penta
751-3365
Global TV, 501-150 Wellington
Emmanuelle Latraverse
288-6813
Radio-Canada TV, 181 Queen
David Ljunggren
235-6745
Reuters, 400-165 Sparks
George Papadionysiou
236-7343
CTV, 1400-100 Queen

List: Includes:

Oliver, Craig
236-7343
CTV, 1400-100 Queen St

Van Dusen, Julie
288-6926
CBC TV, 181 Queen

Duffy, Mike
224-1313
Sunday Edition, 1500 Merivale Rd

Delacourt, Susan
237-1773
Toronto Star, 400-150 Wellington
more: http://www.gallery-tribune.ca/members.html

The below is a e-mail I have sent to CTV and CBC (with some changes)outlining my thoughts on this issue;

Your entire tone, not to mention your message about the "right" to cover the grief of the families when our fallen heroes return is repugnant. To whine about being shut out is at best an outright LIE. You have every opportunity to cover the ongoing mission (which you won't, and I wonder why?), the Ramp ceremonies, and if the families choose, the funerals.

Consider this, the Legion, the military brass, and the soldiers all support the Government's position on this. So does a large proportion of the Canadian people.

Personally, I will not watch your newsnet, or any other CTV channel as long as you continue to treat our Military and thier families so shabbily.

I, for one, am not a paranoid conspiracy theorist, so why do I need to see the flag-drapped coffin on Canadian soil to know that someone has died in defense of our freedoms and who that someone was. The names and faces of the dead soldiers have been splashed across the media, so unless I think there is a conspiracy, why do I need to see the coffin on Canadian soil?

There is no overarching "media ban"...they just want the media ghouls to give the mourning families a bit of privacy when they greet their dearly departed back home...at least until they're off the tarmac.

As for the flag lowering, what happens if there is someone killed every day? Do we keep the flag lowered to half-mast every day? If the flag is at half-mast and another is killed, do we lower it to quarter-mast? And then eight-mast? And then sixteenth mast...ad nauseum?

I suspect that this is reason for the policy in the first place. Practicality has to eventually take precedence over the honours due each dead patriot. The criticisms are nothing but empty political posturing.

When I think of the MSM, I remember that, during the recent election, a distinguished reporter asked Stephen Fletcher (MP for Charleswood, Winnipeg, who is in a wheelchair) whether he was offended, hurt, insulted etc that the motto for his Conservatives was "Stand up for Canada". Now there's an intelligent question wouldn't you say??? I would call it disgraceful!!! So much for press sensitivity.

I'm a politics junky and usually I love the rough and tumble of political exchange. But this whole saga leaves me with a very sad feeling. The media has leapt on a non story to create a political football, the Dippers and Liberals dutifully kick it into play, and all of this while our latest casualties from Afghanistan are not even buried. The government has shown great restraint in not rising to the bait, but the Tory bloggers need to be careful not to feed the trolls. Don't play this game. It's not politics as usual. Politics govern the nature of our mission in Afghanistan. Politics should have nothing to do with how our nation honours the fallen.

"So what's the point here? Because this anon woman didn't like the media coverage of a a private funeral in which she was involved, we are supposed to conclude that the government is right to ban the media from a public ceremony?

Posted by Jason Cherniak at April 26, 2006 10:41 AM "

If you don't get the point, Jason, then your head is as thick as the block on the collective media they are using for a head.
They are , as a whole, a repugnant force whose tactics as outlined in the e-mail from the military widow as most unseemly, distasteful, disrespectful and unwarranted. IF children behaved in such a manner they would be discplined severely.
This is what is going to happen to the media collectively if they keep this up.
People in droves are cancellng their subscriptions, refusing to watch revolting behaviour by the media on television and are finally catching on to the 'propaganda' tactics they use regularly : ( Calling chain link "barbed wire" )
Pay attention, there, Jason. And put yourself in the shoes of every widow of a fallen soldier, or the grieving families of victims anywhere. The media are all the same: poking microphones in the faces of obviously distraught people.
It is cold, cruel, inhumane and disgusting.
THAT's what's wrong with it and why it should not be tolerated.

There's another point. Jason Cherniak, as apologist for the Liberal Party, wrote that the writer of the letter was 'anonymous'. Who ever indicated that? The individual wrote to Kate and asked that her identity be removed for privacy. She didn't write Kate anonymously.

Again, the MSM is an appendage of the Liberal Party. It moved into that role over the past generation, for all its members have been brainwashed within the Trudeau utopian isolationism and emotionalism. And, the Liberal Party has deliberately linked itself to the MSM, using it as its major propaganda apparatus. (Rather than having a Ministry of Propaganda, the Liberals used the flattered MSM). Now, the CPC and Harper don't want propaganda; they want to directly and factually, speak with the electorate. The MSM have lost their propaganda role - and are extremely angry - as it privileged them (rather than the electorate)..who were reduced to being meek Listeners of the MSM.
Harper has, sometimes, daily press interviews; his ministers are often on the MSM. There is MORE information coming out of our gov't than ever, ever, before. And it's facts, not fiction.

But - the MSM aren't its purveyors and authors. They don't like that.

I have sent my displeasure to news@ctv.ca most likley will not hear back & i have also sent to my local MP showing support for the government decision.
Just another point of interest go back & read yesterday's on the flag issue...very end..
way to go kate good on you....seeya bcl..

IMHO there is precisely zero redeeming value in showing grief stricken widows, emotionally shattered, as their lives are now forever changed, on TV for the nation to see, as they FIRST encounter their spouses returning in a box.

It is so called journalism at its lowest; in the tradition of the "National Enquirer". This is the video version of "drive by shooting". Most likely the fallen soldier will have funeral which the media can and does monitor all they want, replete with widows tears if they absolutely have to show this to the nation.

Anyone who has ever buried a relative, knows the pangs of personal devastation, things left regrettably unsaid, hopes dashed, replaced by a disquieting emptiness.

I suspect the MSM are simply looking for a 'wedge issue' to corner some distraught spouse into saying they don't support this or that mission in a moment of weakness a la Cindy Sheehan. What great copy would that make? Welcome to the viper's club and the ice in their veins crowd. The MSM would be acting just like their "American" counterparts.

This is simple politicization of death, or as someone mentioned above "Necro-politik". If the MSM want to "support the soldiers" their best bet would be in the budgetary cycle so their deaths aren't numbered under the column "UNNECESSARY" due to outdated equipment.

Much as the MSM would like to "titillate" us with Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"; they have spent little time perusing bugetary malfunction. But why do boring stuff when you can show a little T & A?

Regrettably, I would venture to say that more than a few deaths over the years may have been due to equipment or lack thereof. How else to explain 40 year old equipment still in the field? The chief nasty in the woodpile would be the funding levels being left, as Gen. Hillier noted some units are on the "skeletal" level. (No pun intended) The reason some investigations take so long? Try liability concerns, cover your ass, lawsuits, etc.

I suppose the watershed for many in the military is that "twisting in the wind" moment, when you know its all going for shit and there is little one can do about it.

As Ed the Hun noted over at Stephen Taylor there is lasting bitterness over episodes like Rwanda and Gen. Romeo Dallaire who despite personal best efforts was left to "twist in the wind" witnessing what has to have been among the worst horror shows since the end of WWII.

If this is the treatment of a General in the field, God help the rank and file. Why did this appalling disgrace to humanity happen. The short answer: A crisis of leadership at the political level of the UN.

What pray tell is the wisdom in sending people to do their sworn duty with inadequate resources?

Or is it that as Gen Dallaire noted, the job of bureaucrats to report "that there are only people and too many of them."?

Maybe it is time for the MSM to scutinize their behaviour or lack of thereof and take a wider picture of budget cycle, equipment cycles, political landscape and the like. Maybe then the soldiers, that so many ostensibly support, will have fewer flaps over such issues as flags flying at half mast.

The problem with the MSM is they haven't done their real job by half. Pseudo advocacy just doesn't cut it. It is an insult to anyone who has ever donned a uniform.

It is lack of vision and lack of focus on the real issues that leave many tuning out the MSM because they are perceived as being part of the problem!! But hey why be self aware when one's vision spans no longer than the next news cycle?

Imagine a public hearing. A witness makes a brief statement; the steno who is there to record the proceedings types for a few seconds, then waits for the next words. The judge utters a few words, and the steno types them out, then waits.

A witness who the steno dislikes is called up. He utters five words; the steno types for a minute. The commission chair asks a question, but the steno doesn't type; when the witness responds with a single word, the steno starts typing, and continues typing for half an hour, rocking slightly and with furrowed brow,pausing only to scratch her chin.

The hearing adjourns for a lunch break. The steno continues typing furiously, as other stenos enter the room. They put papers on her desk and whisper into her ear as she types more furiously than ever. Finally, with a flourish, she grabs all her assembled minutes and hands them over to her publisher.

Canadian MSM journalism in a nutshell.

I will say it again. The MSM has lost ALL credability. They are lower than slime. Now is the time to tell the advertisers drop them or we will buy from others.

What really eggs me is that the media continue to egg on two points which are completely false.

1) They say the American policy is a result of George W. Bush. This is false. The policy went into place in 1991 and was restated by Bill Clinton in 2000. So, the American policy has been in effect for 15 years.

2) They say that Harper's policy mirrors the American policy. This is also untrue.

The US does not allow pictures of the caskets in the warzone.
Canada does allow pictures of the caskets in the warzone.

The US does not allow pictures of the caskets being loaded into the planes.
Canada does allow pictures of the caskets being loaded into the plane.

The US does not allow pictures of the caskets in the planes.
Canada does allow pictures of caskets in the planes.

The only similarity is that upon the plane carrying the caskets landing on home soil, the media is barred from any interaction and photographing of the caskets and the family members.

Talk about a tempest in a tea cup. The media doesn't have full access for photographing anything they want. Have we seen inside pictures of the fire damage in the HMCS Chicoutimi? No. And I agree that we shouldn't since it is national security. Do we need to have the media in the faces of grieving family members? No, because that simply a question of common decency.

Anybody who doesn't get that is missing a few screws.

The real problem is the insatiable thirst for what's going on, usually somebodies pain and suffering.

If you don't like the way that the MSM conducts itself my suggestion is to turn it off and stop talking about it. Stop slowing down when there's an accident and finally, stop being interested by pain and suffering. The best way you can help is to get joy into your life.

My only source of news is blogs, by the people for the people. That's it.

Let's take the money we shovel at the CBC and give it to the Military, along with a few billion more. We will have less casualties and will be gratified to know that our troops have decent armour with with to defend their positions and take the fight to those blood thirsty terrorists. The stronger the better, the latest in military technology the better. They fight for us. Give them the tools. The CBC, the Media hourde should be relegated to the trash bin of history for the way they behave. They fail to realize we are at war and do not have the luxury of picking apart our military, our government ( now we have a decent PM who understands the fundamentals) endlessly carping about inanities while behaving like boorish swine.
Stop wasting time and let's get this fight done.
Each act that disrespects our military , our PM and our government and hinders their efforts to defend and protect us is an act that aids and comforts the enemy. The media better get that and soon!

Jason - in response to your comment below

So what's the point here? Because this anon woman didn't like the media coverage of a a private funeral in which she was involved, we are supposed to conclude that the government is right to ban the media from a public ceremony?

The answer - YES!

The thing the irks me is this Liberal sense of entitlement has trickled down to the masses. The star is full of outraged lefties not allowed to see the dead. "We have rights as Canadians" they scream. Rights over private Canadian families mourning their dead sons, husbands, fathers?

I'm afraid these bloody Liberals have succeeded in raising a nation of peeping Toms.

Off topic, but the Spanish Socialist Party has now granted full human rights to the Simian population. That's right, any chimp in socialist Spain has the same rights as a human - because there's so little difference between monkey DNA and human DNA.

Where stand the socialist commentators on this? Will this become the next great plank in Jack and Olivia's (r)evolutionary march? Restitution for all the caged apes down through history? Could monkey/man marriage be far behind?

@LGF

Hey bigpiggysicko how about when your daddy dies we send a bunch of scumballs to harass and bother you while you cry? What a good reason for retroactive birth control.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/04/26/sinai-blast.html

"Two suicide bombers attacked an air base in the Sinai Peninsula on Wednesday which is home to a multinational peacekeeping force made up mostly of Canadian soldiers.

The Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) said in a statement that none of its personnel was injured in the attack just north of its base in el Gorah, Egypt. However, it did say that a vehicle had been damaged."

At the end of the piece:

"The Canadian contingent consists of 29 volunteers, from the country's armed forces, ranging in rank from corporal to colonel,"

Two points - firstly the posting to MFO is a normal rotation not a volunteer post. I had several Canadians working for me when I was there as part of my staff and they were posted as part of a normal career structure.

Secondly the MFO has some 2000 odd soldiers, three infantry Battalions (Fiji US and Colombia) with supporting staff and choppers etc from NZ Norway Australia Uruguay France Italy etc.

Why did CBC get their facts so wrong when they even mention the MFO website in their article? Are they trying to play UP the very small (although welcome) Canadian contribution and therefore the danger or what?

I emailed them - no correction 12 hours later!

My god, bcl - your ignorance is boundless. You seem to be 'frozen in stupid'. It's really quite astonishing to read your posts. They are always the same. They are always factually incorrect; they have one agenda - to express your hostility to good government and your support for the Liberals, the party of corruption and money laundering. Incredible.

Rather than reading a MSM propaganda rag, read the Canadian Heritage protocols; the flag on the Peace Tower is NOT flown at half-staff for each and every military death. The Peace Tower flag is ONLY flown at half-staff on the full day (from sunrise to sunset) of November 11th. That's protocol; that's tradition.

Harper is observing due protocol. Get it? Due protocol. He isn't Chretien - who ordered the Peace Tower flag half-staffed ONLY for the 'four-friendly-fire' casualties - and Chretien did that for Political Partisan purposes - to bolster anti-Americanism. Chretien didn't give a damn about the military; he reduced their funds to nothing, permitted them to use 40 year old equipment, purchased rusted subs - a vicious and narcissistic and unprincipled man.

Harper, unlike Chretien, has principles. Harper has ethics. He is observing due protocol and not singling out some, and ignoring others - for that Peace Tower flag.

And, bcl, our local ignoramus, the flags on OTHER buildings, such as Defence, such as military barracks ARE flown at half-staff for each death. OK?

So, bcl, your ignorance is incredible, your aversion to facts is astonishing.
Oh- and you never, ever, answer questions.
Why not?

Therefore, in conclusion, Harper's reasoning about the flags is NOT crumbling. It can't; he's following protocol, as outlined in the Canadian Heritage rules. OK?

A couple of things. While it is a chainlink fence, like most bases, including the armoury that I walk past on my way to work, the chain link fences are topped with barbed wire. Sure, they don't have to look through it, but there is some there.

As well, I will continue to slow down by 10 km/h for accidents by the side of the road. I do so not to rubberneck, but out of concern for the safety of the people involved and emergency personnel. The OPP requested that of the public a couple years back.

John M Reynolds

"Each act that disrespects our military, our PM and our government and hinders their efforts to defend and protect us is an act that aids and comforts the enemy. The media better get that and soon!"

Snowbunnie, please don't take this personal, but that is precisely the propaganda sleight-of-hand that should have no place in a democracy.

You are putting disrespect/disagreement/criticism of the PM and/or of the government on a par with lack of support for the troops, with hindering defence efforts, and even treason. If I were in government, I would consider this ideal. There would be no further need of discussion, politics or even democracy. The government could govern as it sees fit in the national interest as perceived, and everybody else would salute or shut up.

Would your opinion be the same if we had a Liberal government?

If we had a liberano government do you really think the MSM would say or do anything against them? As it sits they are all guilty of treason.

"The Harper rationale for not flying the flag at half-staff continues to crumble. From the Montreal Gazette:"

BCL:

I think that you are really missing the point here. The protocol for half-staffing the flag on the Peace Tower has been readily available on Cdn Heritage Ministries website for quite some time.

It has always been the case that the PM has the authority to order that particular flag lowered at his discretion.

Chretien changed the practice when the "friendly fire" incident occured. Although many say that was a result of his desire to poke the American in the eye, his motivation is not at issue. What is at issue is that the Canadian military is founded on a very proud tradition, and many of us think that it is a good idea to respect that tradition. Basically, the tradition is founded on the basis that all fallen members of the CAF should be treated equally and with common respect.

And the irony of Chretien, who demonstrated nothing but contempt for our military, posturing by lowering the PT flag would be humourous if it wasn't so sad.

The fact is, many politicians, including Moore, really don't know what the protocol and traditions are, and they can be forgiven for their lack of knowledge.

But this unseemly furor being initiated by media and politicians over the issue is a grave insult to the sacrifices made by the fallen soldiers. I cannot fathom why these people think it is OK to try to make political points using the bodies of dead soldiers as a springboard.

The PT flag is a unique symbol. It is the country's special flag. If you start mucking with tradition, where does it end?

For example, in the case of one of the solder's who died in Afganistan, the PT flag was not lowered. Why? Was his life less relevant? We'll never know.

And anyone who has ever served knows that combat operations are an extension of the nearly endless training exercises undertaken at home. If a soldier dies in a training accident at Petawawa, does the PT flag get lowered too? Clearly the base flags would be lowered. But if the PT isn't lowered, does that mean his life is less valuable? Or that the sailor who died in the submarine fire, an accident in a non-combat situation, was more important because the PT flag was lowered to mark his death?

Treating the PT flag in the traditional manner eliminates these inequities.

Shirley mentioned Stephen Fletcher: Man of courage; a warrior in his own right.

Stand with Stephen Fletcher. Note his mention of the "media".

Stephen Fletcher,Conservative M.P., Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia riding; Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

Standing up for Canada: Stephen Fletcher stands in the House of Commons. Bravo,Bravo, Bravo. +

Fletcher stands in the House of Commons
Demonstrating through action that "everything is possible"

By Garry Angus

On Dec. 8th, using a special wheelchair to elevate himself to a standing position, Conservative MP and senior health critic Steven Fletcher rose to address the House of Commons during question period. It was a personal "first" for Fletcher and significant for raising awareness of the ability of people with disabilities, and the requirements for their active participation as full citizens.

Fletcher, who represents the Charleswood - St. James riding of Winnipeg, was elected last June 28th, beating out former Winnipeg mayor Glen Murray. Fletcher, a quadriplegic resulting from a 1996 car accident, is the first person with a significant disability elected to Canada's top government.

Commenting on this 'first' in an interview for the Disability News, Fletcher says, " I'm amazed on the one hand, and then not on the other hand… after going through the [electoral] process".

In the very competitive nomination process, Fletcher was faced with tough questions about his ability to do the job from a wheelchair. "The general feeling of the community out there was, "How is he going to get there; how is he going to fly; how is he going to door knock?"" says Fletcher.

He found that Winnipeg major media outlets, radio and television, were not wheelchair accessible, making it necessary for him to "give his pitch" as he says, from phone or at a remote location.

" I had to demonstrate through action that everything was possible, " Fletcher said.

Beating out the former Winnipeg mayor Murray sent Fletcher, with his unique perspective, to Ottawa and the House of Commons - first and foremost as the representative of his constituents and for issues affecting all Canadians, not only people with disabilities, he said. + more...
http://www.reachdisability.org/news/050210_fletcher_stands_in_the_house_of_commons.html

Lord love a duck, Free, what is the point of painting the MSM as the enemy? Look, I had no trouble falling out of love with the Liberals from my daily intake of MSM, and had some pretty nasty LTTE (about Gagliano and Radwanski, for instance)published instantly.

Abandon the MSM-prop-of-the-Liberals line. The MSM are not responsible for the conservative years in the wilderness - the Conservatives were. And the current spat is churlish and will neither win you friends nor influence people (in your favour, that is.)

Bruce - thanks - that was an excellent post.

By the way, Lorrie Goldstein has a nice outline of the 'flag flap' in his april 26 column in the Toronto Sun. He critiques the Liberals, who gutted the amount spent on defence to 1.1% of GDP, which is 17th out of 19 NATO members, just 'ahead of Luxembourg'. He critiques the NDP, with their history of "anti-NATO, anti-NORAD, anti-military'.

He asks - why don't these 'flag-flappers' "support decent pay, pensions, housing and survivor benefits"... "why don't they demand they be given the best weapons, uniforms, training, and equipment"...rather than "ancient airplanes that can't get off the ground, helicopters that fall from the sky and submarines that leak".

All of that - is directly and only, due to the Liberals.

The only thing I object to in Goldstein's column, is his support for the media at the base in Trenton. I agree with Harper - that's a private matter for the families and we, voyeurs, rubber-neckers, have no right to intrude on that privacy.

Peace is an aberration in the "story" of mankind. War is the norm.

There are those who cry out for peace when there is no peace.

There are those who style themselves "peace activists"; there are so-called peace-keepers.

Then there are the peace makers; the soldiers, the warriors.
Blessed are the peace makers. +

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for it is they who will be recognized as sons of God. ... Online Parallel Bible · Blessed · Children · Happy · Peacemakers ...
bible.cc/matthew/5-9.htm - 6k -

The MSM is the enemy. They lie, spin, twist, etc. I have witnessed many violations of the treason act by these scum. They lost my trust a long time ago. One would think you must be one of them to defend the lies they spread so well.

OMG, I never thought it would happen but Steve d actually made a point: The return of the soldiers to their loved ones was a PRIVATE moment and to sensationalize it for the sake of a spot on the nightly news is just wrong. As was mentioned earlier, it just isn't news anymore but an op-ed piece where "journalists" ask each other questions about what they think about it Trust me, not everything has to be done like Sports Beat.

Say what you want but the Canadian military is a family of sorts and as such I would never want to subject any of my family to the media unnecessarily, especially is times of grief. Remember this is not a JFK being flown back from Dallas where the press never really hounded Mrs K & family.

ET, I am sorry that I have to appear as the defender of the Liberals, but the facts should not be ignored.

The decline of the CF in the '90s cannot be blamed solely on the Liberal Government. "Rust out" was a condition that the CF tried to address in the 1987 White Paper, but the Mulroney Government couldn't find the money either.

There is only so much money any government has to spend, and there are statutory obligations, as well as competing priorities and requirements. Rightly or wrongly - fortunately? - Defence has not been a major requirement and priority for Canadian governments for decades.

If you were old enough to have to make ends meet in the mid-'90s, you will recall what the financial state of Canada was. I came back after five years overseas, and the feeling of despair among my contacts was palpable. Also recall that the Cold War was over, and that there were expectations of a "Cold War bonus" in the form of defence savings, since we no longer faced an enemy on the expensive "high-intensity" battlefield. Can you imagine the hue and cry if the government (regardless of party) had diverted additional billions to DND under these circumstances? There was no perceived requirement, and there certainly was no money.

Blame the Liberals for what they did wrong, but stick to what they actually did. We'll know soon how Defence will fare in the Conservative budget.

And Free, I never worked in or for the MSM in any capacity, and stand by the views and recommendation you don't like.

Abandon the MSM-prop-of-the-Liberals line. The MSM are not responsible for the conservative years in the wilderness - the Conservatives were. And the current spat is churlish and will neither win you friends nor influence people (in your favour, that is.)

Posted by agitfact

well said.

Bigcitylib said:

"Now Afghanistan is a political problem"

But it was no problem when the Liberal government sent them there in the first instance?

The logical connectors are just stunning!

The Liberals were inconsistent in their policy of lowering the flag. Harper as is his nature made a decision and that is the flag will only be lowered on Nov. 11th. Good decision and Graham is a hypocrite for challenging the government for this decision because Graham made the same decision in Nov. 2005.

Watching coffins on a conveyor belt and being carried to a waiting hearse is ghoulish and morbid in the extreme. The only reason the MSM want to be there is so they can videotape the grieving families for their newscasts. It is disrespectful to our military. By allowing the MSM to cover the repatriation it allows them to have every wingnut on air to say they support the troops but don't like the mission. Give me a break. Once again Harper is showing leadership. He makes a decision and it makes sense. He is not covering anything up. We saw the ramp ceremony in Khandahar and saw wall to wall coverage all weekend. What more do we need? If the families want to open the funeral for the loved one to the media it is their right. Then the media can proceed with their ghoulish activity. Once again, if it bleeds, it leads. Shame on them.

First, to the Canadian forces widow who wrote to Kate at SDA, my deep condolences on the loss of your husband and the father of your children. I hope and pray that aside from the government which was not helpful--and I note that it must have been the Liberal government as Mme Clarkson was still the GG--you have the support of your family and friends. I am one Canadian who is deeply grateful for the sacrifice your husband made on our behalf and on behalf of the free world. Both of my grandfathers served in WWI and WWII and my father served in WWII. By God's grace, they came home...

I am grateful that you have said, so eloquently, how intrusive the MSM can be at a moment of private grief. I believe that the CPC policy of making the return of slain soldiers to Canada a time of private, family grief is sound, and you have underlined the truth of this sensibility.

I am going to forward a copy of your letter to my CPC MP and to Bill Graham, the Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you, again, for taking the time to let us know what the reality is for families who have lost a loved one in battle.

God bless you and your family.

Lakota:

"The General Hillier muzzling story was invented by a reporter who is now the new head of the Parliamentary Press gallery. In her article she claimed that "an anonymous source" and "according to an un-named official" said that the General had to clear all of his speeches with the PMO. Good reporting huh! "

Deaner:

"Not correct - as the PMO has stated, and Hillier's ofice has confirmed, the PMO asked Hillier to advise them of the subjects he would be covering in public statements so that Harper could be prepared to respond if asked about them. The PMO did not assert any right to determine the content of Hillier's statements, or even to be made aware of the specific comments in advance. Hillier's office was quite adamant that he would refuse either request in any event."

Well, thats interesting considering my husband heard this from the lips of his base commander, and I also heard this from my father who works at NDHQ who has also heard this same thing first hand, from his CO. I havent read or heard about the gag order via the media, just through military sources that I consider very good.

Military members in general are always briefed on what they can and cannot say to the media. They are not allowed to express a political affiliation, displeasure or to censure the government in anyway. What makes you think the top brass is exempt from this? My husband is not even allowed to wear civilian clothing with "statements" nor is he allowed to attend any demonstrations, rallys or protests.

But hey, beleive what you want.

I am a regular force infantry soldier (PPCLI). I have been deployed to Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. I have not been to Afghanistan yet, but I eagerly await my turn to go there and do my duty to help the people there who cannot help themselves. I and many other Canadian soldiers all know the risks, and have decided that sometimes there are more important things to worry about than our own personal safety. We are not children, misled, unknowing, and unthinking robots following some blind policy set in Ottawa or Washington. We know what the issues are. We chose to serve our country. We chose to do what we do because we feel it to be the right thing, and we act on it. Now the recent flag flap and all the bother about the media being denied access to the arriving caskets has raised some important points. First I would like to address the point of where was all this discussion when we were being blown to hell and killed in the former Balkans in the ‘90s? That was Peacekeeping you say and thus acceptable to be marginalized by the media and the rest of Canadian society? Hypocrisy! The Liberals sent us to these places and when we got into firefights, shot missiles at tanks and got wounded and/or killed, it was hushed up far more effectively than anything that Harper or even G. Bush could have dreamed of. The Battle of Medak Pocket is one example, coming to public attention years after the incident. Why are casualties only now really being hyped up by the media? The media and opposition politicians have an agenda, and there are using dead soldiers to promote it. At least this is what appears to be happening to me. The Harper government is not trying to hide deaths and casualties. How could they with the sheer amount of media in Afghanistan right now. If it happens last night it will be news by morning. If you ask the soldiers, they will for the most part tell you that they would just as well prefer it if people (this includes the media) would just let them get on with it, do their damn jobs and get home safely. Without all the hype and hoopla. Quit making every injury and death a national catastrophe, and start focussing on the good that those soldiers did! They want to hear how Cpl Bloggins’(fake name) gave stuffed animals to the local children, and everyone liked him, and he saved three of his fellow soldiers before being killed in a fierce firefight with Taliban insurgents. That is what the soldiers want to tell, and that is what I feel, the people want to hear and see. As for the casket homecoming ceremony, if so much as one child from the deceased family doesn’t want publicity, then that is it, no media present and to hell with the right to know and inform. As for the Flag at half-mast. For myself, if I am killed overseas, I would rather die knowing that the flag of my country will continue to fly high and proud, and that my death, though tragic, was in service to a higher cause and in the name of the people of my country. I know that my unit and base, even the town I live in will lower their flags to let the local people know that one of their own has died. For the rest of the country, watch the news (if you can still stand them that is) or listen to the radio, just like everyone else does for when one of us is wounded or falls. On November 11th, the flags will be at half-mast for ALL soldiers who have died, no matter when, where or the circumstances that were involved. Lets just apply some common sense, decency and respect to these matters and give the families of the wounded and killed, a bit of space and peace.

BCL...
when are you going to quit re-gurgitating the same trash over and over and over. give it a rest.

"Bottom line is there is no protocol , or the Liberals were already following it. That's what the various revelations of the past couple of days have demonstrated."

BCL:

I trying really, really hard to be courteous and polite to you, because I believe you merit it. You are not a troll, and you often add interesting aspects to the discussions here.

But to say there was no protocol is to deny facts staring you in the face! Read Gen. Lewis'column in the National Post yesterday. He was clear about the past protocol. Talk to a vet. Visit any branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, or read the quote below from today's Ottawa Citizen:

"...Bob Butt, a national spokesman for the Royal Canadian Legion, said the Legion was initially opposed to the practice. But once the flag was lowered for the first Afghanistan casualties, that started a tradition that should continue, he said.

"If you do it for one, do it for all," he said. "You can't be selective."

Cliff Chadderton, chairman of the National Council of Veteran Associations, which represents 55 veterans' groups, said it was a "mistake" to start the half-staffing in the first place. It unfairly distinguishes those who die in Afghanistan from those who have died in past wars, he said.

The memories of soldiers who have died in Afghanistan, he added, should be commemorated along with those of every other military death when the flag is lowered on Nov. 11, Remembrance Day.

"We don't draw a distinction on a death in Afghanistan or a death in Normandy," he said..."

To call Chretien's change to a tradition that extended back to the Boer War a "protocol" is akin to stating that Chretien's interest in the military extended past putting a helmet on backwards.

Oh and by the way, before you start comparing Harper to Bush on this issue, please note the prectice of denying the media access to the unloading of coffins at the Dover airbase was initiated under Clinton.

Chretien altered the tradition because he was a vicious, narcissistic bully who wanted to score political, anti-American points by using the corpses of dead soldiers.

And to clarify my personal position, until Chretien was elected, I was a life-long Liberal (and being a vocal Trudeau supporter in Calgary during the NEP era was no picnic, believe me). Once Chretien took office, and I saw first-hand what a corrupt SOB he and his minions were, I switched sides forever.

Jennifer (12:04 p.m.): You say, "I worry that this media ban will eventually lead to a permanent gag order concerning all the Afghan deaths and events."

Excuse me?

There are three stages in this process:

1. The slain wo/men in their coffins are given a military send-off home to Canada with cameras and embedded media personnel reporting. Anyone who wanted to saw the four flag-draped coffins in Kandahar. No cover-up here, no "gag order."

2. The coffins of the slain soldiers arrive in Canada and out of respect for the mourning families, no cameras and no MSM "reporters" are given access to this event. Given that three out of four of the families did not complain about this protocol, I don't know what the fuss is about--except a shameless and brazen attempt by the MSM to use our fallen soldiers and their families as a cudgel against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government.

3. When families arrange for the funerals of their loved one, they can invite the MSM to cover the funeral, to talk to them, etc.

So there is no attempt to gag anyone or cover up anything, and any suggestion to the contrary is to ignore the facts of what the CPC is doing here.

Again, Bruce - many thanks for an excellent post.

It's remarkable about bcl; she's 'stuck in stupid'. Now - she's saying that 'there is no protocol'..other than that the PM can do what he wants with the flag. Ridiculous.
I suggested he check out the Department of Canadian Heritage
http://www.pch.gc.ca/
She obviously hasn't bothered to do that; she prefers fiction to fact.

As you point out, there IS a long-established protocol. The Peace Tower flag is only lowered to half-staff on Nov. 11th. Period. Other flags on Defence Headquarters, military barracks, town halls, may be lowered at other times - but - that Peace Tower flag is only - Nov. 11th.

So now, bcl, denies truth; denies that there IS a protocol. Chretien broke that protocol - for his own political agenda. He wanted to provoke a giant anti-American emotion in Canada; he used the deaths of those soldiers, for his own political purposes. He broke protocol. But, bcl, locked in 'stupid' - won't accept the truth.

Harper is following the protocol, exactly as outlined by the official government heritage mandate.

By the way - I'll continue to blast the MSM for their anti-Harper and anti-CPC agenda. I'm NOT saying that the decline of the PC party was due to the MSM! That's a different issue.

I'm saying that the MSM moved into a role, particularly during the time of Chretien, as his propaganda tool. Chretien governed by propaganda, by behind-the-scenes arrangements, by money laundering in Quebec, to pay for Liberal ridings, by cronyism. The MSM never critiqued him, never criticized. And now, the MSM has become accustomed to that privileged role as the Mouthpiece of the PMO...and doesn't like being relegated to conveying FACTS, rather than writing FICTION.

In regard to the flag flap, those that know something of what it means to be a soldier, know, understand and applaud that the flag MUST fly, even in the face of death.

To lower the flag during the course of battle (and we remain "in the course of battle", in Afghanistan), is to surrender. Soldiers fight so that the sovereign banner of the nation, and its principles, may be held strong and high for all to see. This is one of the oldest traditions in a military history. Soldiers expect nothing less that the banner under and for which they fought and died to remain held high, regardless how grave the effort, how horrific the losses. A nation which lowers its flag in the face of battle signifies its surrender.

This is part of the purpose of Remembrance Day, so that a nation may in concert, and with pride, and humility, and in defiance of its enemies, dip its ensign not in surrender, but in salute to those who gave it life.

But those who from personal grief or simple lack of understanding would lower the flag, simply do not comprehend the commitment the soldier has made: to offer his life so that the flag of the nation would NOT come down.

The flag on the Peace Tower must only be dipped for matters of state. The soldier's vow, in life, and in death, is to keep it flying high. By breaking the faith, the previous government signaled its contempt for the sacrifice. It was to time to set it right.

God rest them all.

The only time the Liberal party of Canada cares anything about the military, is when they are looking for votes. to hear Liberals screaming about anything to do with the military sickens me.

When my brother returned from Somalia, the press treated his unit as if they were a bunch of baby murderers.

I even remeber a cartoon that portrayed Canadian soldiers as goose stepping fascists.

So please....lefties and the press....leave the families of the deceased soldiers alone.

Oh ya...I served from 77-85...never once was the flag lowered on the peace tower for any my 6 buddies that died while serving in my various regiments.

"A nation which lowers its flag in the face of battle signifies its surrender."

Nicely put, Skip...

For the very same reason, our national flag is never "dipped" on parade. Regimental colours etc. can be dipped on review, but the flag of the nation is always held high.

It's a real shame this sort of material isn't part of school curriculum any more. Heck, do we even have flags in classrooms these days?

Volk of PPLI said:

"First I would like to address the point of where was all this discussion when we were being blown to hell and killed in the former Balkans in the ‘90s? That was Peacekeeping you say and thus acceptable to be marginalized by the media and the rest of Canadian society? Hypocrisy! The Liberals sent us to these places and when we got into firefights, shot missiles at tanks and got wounded and/or killed, it was hushed up far more effectively than anything that Harper or even G. Bush could have dreamed of. The Battle of Medak Pocket is one example, coming to public attention years after the incident. Why are casualties only now really being hyped up by the media? The media and opposition politicians have an agenda, and there are using dead soldiers to promote it. At least this is what appears to be happening to me. The Harper government is not trying to hide deaths and casualties. How could they with the sheer amount of media in Afghanistan right now. If it happens last night it will be news by morning."

The simple answer is that in '93 the build out of the mass media internet connection was still in its infancy. Now 13 years later anybody with a blogging site can become an armchair analyst.
I agree, yes it was damn hypocritical then and is still hypocritical now.

If the government in its wisdom sends troops into a Medak firefight or a slaughter like Rwanda then the public should know about the general involvement and the reasons for it. Operational details are obviously off limits, but it goes without saying that most Canadians would at the very least expect that their soldiers have reliable tools and support at their disposal. Have the troops been given a fair shake at these times? Probably not, but they should have been.

Political posturing won't go away, but steps can be taken to minimize the obvious "taking out the trash" for the cameras nonsense.

In '93 ignored and in '06 cause celeb; go figure.

ET, the alleged role of the MSM is only a tangent on this "Widow" thread, but it keeps on cropping up as a fixation and source of conservative
tribulations on this and other threads.

Again, the Liberals' shenanigans - from "Shawinigate" to HR billion to Gagliano to Gun Registry to Radwanski to Sponsorhip to Mr. Dithers and Dingwall - were reported and discussed extensively in the MSM, and famously ridiculed in CBC (!) cabaret programs. If the MSM had been Chretien's or the Liberal Party's "propaganda tool," I and millions of other Canadians would never have known about these scandals - and the Conservatives would still be in the wilderness.

Like it or not, the facts mitigate against conservative MSM claims. If you can name a post-1993 Liberal scandal this consumer of MSM news hasn't read or heard about, I will be happy to apologize.

Skip (7:36 p.m.):

"The flag on the Peace Tower must only be dipped for matters of state. The soldier's vow, in life, and in death, is to keep it flying high. By breaking the faith, the previous government signaled its contempt for the sacrifice. It was time to set it right."

Thanks for your post. Who would know?

I am deeply moved when I find out that for the soldier it is imperative that our flag keep flying high. Our soldiers, by definition, are not self-interested; they put themselves in harm's way in order to protect the sovereign rights of their country--and of their love ones to lives of freedom, responsibility, and peace.

How DARE the self-interested, selfish, and sycophantic members of the "loyal" (sic) Opposition and the MSM skew the meaning of our flag flying from our Parliament Buildings? They need to go back to Civics 101--only problem is, in Canada, we don't have Civics 101. Since Trudeau, we've been kept in perpetual ignorance of our history and of our government and military protocols.

'Time to bring Civics 101 back. And, yes, we do have flags in our classrooms, but they're mostly paper posters. Perhaps we need to have real flags installed.

Sheila, where are you when we need you?

Unfortunately, the MSM seems to have taken the deaths of these men, and their families, hostage.

I believe that the Canadian public has more empathy with the soldiers and their families than with MSM (I do ... just projecting).

It is unfortunate that MSM has chosen to "spit the dummy" (Aussie term dummy=soother") at a time that detracts from honor, duty, and supreme sacrifice of our brave sons.

RIP. My condolence's to all families that have lost a loved one and my deep appreciation for the sacrifice they have made.

It's the ratings, Stupid!

We should all follow Molarmauler's example and quite watching CTV and CBC. Jane Taber is the worst!

Standfast, Prime Minister Harper.

John Buchan : Mr. Standfast
Mr. Standfast. by John Buchan. Part I. Chapter One. The Wicket-Gate · Chapter Two. 'The Village Named Morality' · Chapter Three. The Reflections of a Cured ...
www.classicreader.com/booktoc.php/sid.1/bookid.1355/ - 10k -

Buchan, John, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir, author, governor general of Canada 1935-40 (b at Perth, ... including historical biographies, such as Lord Minto (1924), ...
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001071 - 11k

We standfast with you. +

Harper not backing down from military controversy
Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Jennifer Ditchburn, Canadian Press
Published: Wednesday, April 26, 2006

OTTAWA --Conservative MPs gave Stephen Harper a standing ovation during a closed-door meeting Wednesday when he told them he will not yield to criticism of the way the government commemorates military deaths. +
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13265.4

agitfact - your assumption that the MSM is not partisan in favour of the left, seems to rest on whether/not the MSM has informed the public about all issues. I don't think that informing the public about issues means that they are not partisan about those issues.

Gagliano - and his posting to Denmark. So- the MSM informed us; it didn't mount any protest.
Same with Chretien's funding of his friends, the bank loans to his friends. The MSM informed us; but, it didn't mount any significant protest.

Purchasing used, decrepit subs; the press informs us, but, there's little criticism.

The 40 plus millions still currently missing that the Liberals 'used' during the Sponsorships. The MSM isn't interested in it.

The depth of patronage appointments of the Liberals. The MSM isn't interested in it.

The fact that they report these things, doesn't exclude that they are primarily, pro-left.

It's incredible how the MSM is 'all over' Harper. From the various comments about 'he's cold'; he's unemotional'; he shakes hands with his children; look at his weight; look at his clothes....
Every time I turn on the MSM - there, on Mike Duffy's show, are several members of the MSM, and the Liberal, NDP - all, talking about Harper and 'how bad it is'.
Same with Don Newman.
Same with Global.
They misinform us about the Peace Tower flag, telling Canadians that Harper's decision is a 'break with tradition'...when it is a return to tradition, and a rejection of one person's abuse of tradition (Chretien).

The CBC, the Toronto Star, select letters from people ranting against Harper -

So- all in all, I don't see that the MSM is either presenting facts accurately, or, providing us with unbiased opinions about those facts.

Again - the fact that we heard about these issues via the MSM, does not mean that the MSM is unbiased.

Harper has sensed, quite correctly, that the MSM has launched a campaign to turn public opinion against Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Denying the media access to the repatriation is a shot across their bow that lets them know that he's not going to be a willing participant in their campaign.

Canada stepped up to a more dangerous role in Afghanistan months before the election, while the Libs were still in power. Why did every MSM outlet suddenly made Afghanistan story number 1 since the Conservatives were elected, with no catalyst for the increased attention? Even before the death of any troops?

Why are we only hearing about attacks on our troops and how they are in harms way? Why are we not hearing about the contribution our troops are making in Afghanistan?

For exactly the same reason that coalition successes in Iraq are downplayed or ignored.

agitfact,

"If you can name a post-1993 Liberal scandal this consumer of MSM news hasn't read or heard about, I will be happy to apologize."

Are you making the "Argumentum Ad Ignorantium" as per:

http://tinyurl.com/mkfpw

or something else. I'm just a country boy ... I got to learn this stuff.

Princess Patrica's Canadian Light Infantry

Armorial Description

Within an annulus inscribed PRINCESS PATRICIA'S CANADIAN LIGHT INFANTRY, the cypher and coronet of HRH Princess Patricia, pierced (the coronet comprised of three visible crosses patte interspersed with two strawberry leaves); the whole surmounted by the St. Edward's Crown.
Official Abbreviation: PPCLI

Motto: (None)
Battle Honours (38)

First World War

YPRES, 1915, '17
Arleux
FREZENBERG
Hill 70
Bellewaarde
PASSCHENDAELE
MOUNT SORREL
AMIENS
Somme, 1916
SCARPE, 1918
FLERS-COURCELETTE
Hindenburg Line
Ancre Heights
Canal Du Nord
Arras, 1917-18
PURSUIT TO MONS
VIMY, 1917
FRANCE AND FLANDERS, 1914-18

Second World War

LANDING IN SICILY
RIMINI LINE
LEONFORTE
SAN FORTUNATO
Agira
Savio Brisgehead
Sicily, 1943
Naviglio Canal
THE MORO
FOSSO MUNIO
THE GULLY
Granarola
Liri Valley
Italy, 1943-1945
HITLER LINE
Appeldoorn
GOTHIC LINE
NORTH-WEST EUROPE 1945

Korea

KOREA, 1950-1953
KAPYONG

The 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry, has a unique distinction. This battalion received the Distinguished Unit Citation from the President of the United States to recognize its stand near Kapyong, Korea, in April 1951. Equating to a battle honour, the Citation is represented by a streamer four feet in length and two and three-quarter inches in width, bearing the name of the action, attached to the pike of the regimental Colour. The use of this streamer in accordance with American practice was authorized by King George VI. In addition to the streamer, the Presidential Citation is also worn on the uniform. It is a small royal blue bar with gold trim. Although battle honours are awarded on a regimental basis, and the whole of the PPCLI carries Kapyong on its colours, the distinction of bearing this streamer belongs to 2 PPCLI alone, and is carried on the battalions regimental colour. The badge is also unique to 2PPCLI. +
http://army.ca/inf/ppcli.php

The Battle of the Medak Pocket: PPCLI.

In mid-September 1993 United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) soldiers from 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia=s Canadian Light Infantry advanced into the disputed Medak Pocket with orders to implement the latest cease-fire between Croatian Army troops and Serb irregular forces. They were reinforced with two mechanized companies of French troops. The Canadians, well schooled in the delicate art of Apeacekeeping@, discovered that their negotiation skills were not immediately required there. Instead they found themselves back in their primary war-fighting role when Croatian Army units opened fire with machine-guns, mortars and artillery in an effort to stop the Canadian advance. To complete their assigned mission the Patricia=s were required to threaten the use of, and ultimately use deadly force against the Croatian Army. However, the true test of military professionalism and discipline came after the smoke cleared, the Croatians backed down and the Canadians immediately reverted back to their role as impartial peacekeepers in their dealings with individuals that minutes before had attempted to kill them. +
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/library/medakpocket.htm

My deepest sympathies to all those who have lost a loved one. Isn't it really just the Gerry Springer effect, the morbid curiosity of the msm and those who claim "the public's right to know". Canadians showed their respect for the military when they allowed the Liberals to cancel the helicopter contract, allowed the purchase of canvas iltus cars, allowed the disbandment of the airborne, allowed soldiers to eat courtesy of the food banks, allowed soldiers to deploy in the desert in bright green camouflage and on and on. To say that the cold war had ended and we were in a "new era of peace" is disingenuous at best. The years of peace can be numbered on the fingers and toes of a single individual. I contacted cbc and ctv last night. Tonight I shall contact their sponsors.

Agitfact said "Again, the Liberals' shenanigans - from "Shawinigate" to HR billion to Gagliano to Gun Registry to Radwanski to Sponsorhip to Mr. Dithers and Dingwall - were reported and discussed extensively in the MSM, and famously ridiculed in CBC (!) cabaret programs. If the MSM had been Chretien's or the Liberal Party's "propaganda tool," I and millions of other Canadians would never have known about these scandals - and the Conservatives would still be in the wilderness."

Are you kidding - the "minimal" reporting about these things are what allowed them to be "forgotten" and the Lieberals to be relected over and over and over.

But believe what you will?????

ET, we are now entering subjective assessment of how the MSM report, and that depends on whether they report in favour of or against one's side. No point debating that, because you say, for instance, that they are "all over" Harper, while I think that the Harper camp is over-sensitive to paranoid on the media issue. There is no objective way to resolve this disagreement except by a major media study, which neither you nor I could do. (It would be a great project for a journalism school or comms consultants, if someone had the funds.)

My main point remains that Liberal lapdog MSM would not have contributed to the demise of the Liberal Government. Could they have done more to end the Liberal regime faster? First, not their job, and secondly, there was no other party that could have formed another government, so a moot point. Should they keep looking for Liberal misdeeds? Yes, but they would be yesterday's news, except for anything really big. (Forget patronage appointments - I am surprised that the "biased" media have not raised cane about the appoinment of Mulroney's Appointments Secretary to Harper's Cabinet.)

Ural, your logical query took me back to my youth and second year logic. The "argumentum ad ignorantium" label would have been applicable when we were flogging the "Horton bombing" and the lack of facts disproving that it was a terror incident. My media proposal was simpler: it is possible that there is a Liberal scandal out there that the MSM either did not report or cover fully, which would prove pro-Liberal bias, and warrant an apology.

By the way, check Rick Mercer's blog for his "reductio ad absurdum" of the flag issue yesterday. One-line summary: if the PT flag would be lowered IAW protocol should a Privy Councillor Conrad Black get killed in prison over a carton of cigarettes, get the darn thing down when soldiers die on duty.

Excuse, me Alberta Girl, but which political party could have formed a non-Liberal government between the PCP's self-destruction in 1993 and the CPC resurrection in, say, 2005?

Manning, Day and the brand-new Harper hardly inspired the voters' confidence, and you cannot blame the "MSM" for the resulting lack-of-an-alternative longevity of the LPC.

Excuse me Agritfact but the very fact that all the numerous "scandals" of the Liberal's were minimally reported on, skimmed over and absolved by the MSM allowed the Lieberals to defeat the Reform, the Alliance and the Conservatives through their "scaremongering" - which was blantantly picked up by the MSM. For you to suggest that the MSM was blameless shows that you really haven't been paying attention.

Alberta Girl, I thought I had paid attention and was adequately informed. I've seen or heard no dirt on the Liberals that hadn't been reported before, minimally or otherwise, so I still don't buy your argument. In any case, good night.

Agitfact - we will agree to disagree then - nighty-night

agitfact,

"Ural, your logical query took me back to my youth and second year logic. The "argumentum ad ignorantium" label would have been applicable when we were flogging the "Horton bombing" and the lack of facts disproving that it was a terror incident."

Like a said - I'm a country boy - didn't even do logic. It seems to me that you are using "Ignorantio Elenchi" now ... please confirm.

No, Ural. But since you now are an expert in logical fallacies, I expect the “country boy” to join me in protests against the miscellany of fallacies perpetrated on this site (ad hominem, ad populum etc., as well as their plain-English variants.) Keep that tinyurl page handy.

Back to the flag debate -

The Ottawa Citizen reports this morning (p. 8) that PM Harper has stated that the Peace Tower flag decision was made by MND O'Connor. Direct PMSH quote: "... the minister of national defence ... has taken the decision ..."

I have two problems here:

1. A Peace Tower flag decision under the circumstances applicable here can only be made by the PM. It should not take a private citizen to invite the PM’s, a minister's or the public service’s attention to Rules 14, 16 and 17 of the “Rules for Half-masting the National Flag of Canada” (at http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/occasion_e.cfm)

2. Why is the PM deflecting responsibility for the decision to the MND? If the MND made the right decision, the PM should proclaim it as his own made on the recommendation of the Minister, and not expose himself or his Minister to a charge of ignorance of or over-stepping authority.

OTTAWA --Conservative MPs gave Stephen Harper a standing ovation during a closed-door meeting Wednesday when he told them he will not yield to criticism of the way the government commemorates military deaths. +
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13265.4

Posted by maz2

Let's be honest here, shall we maz2? Harper has gagged those around him. The standing ovation was as authentic as GBW receives during the state of the union address. How long do you think it's going to be before harper tries to install a patriot act north? The way he's going with the increased secrecy, probably not long. And no, I have no love for the libs, they deserved to be booted out, but in the same breath, let's not forget about past tory "indiscretions", ok? I can post a list of those if you've "forgotten" about them.

Excuse me Agritfact but the very fact that all the numerous "scandals" of the Liberal's were minimally reported on, skimmed over and ...yak yak yak...

The reason I wanted the "Li.eberals" out (how very clever:)) was because of the media attention given by the MSM. I guess harps/putin won't have that problem with a muzzled press. Unfortunately, MY TAXES PAY FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN OTTAWA! This being a free country and all, I strongly disagree with the pms' decision to limit the media scrum.

Actually, agitfact, Ural's points about your use of fallacious arguments is correct. Your assertion that unless someone comes up with some bad Liberal deed, unreported by the MSM, you won't accept a conclusion of MSM bias - IS an ad ignoratiam argument, of shifting the burden of proof.

Your attempted rebuttal of 'so what - others use ad hominem' is a diversionary fallacy, which is to say, 'pure and simple irrelevance'. I'd say that Ural knows exactly what he is talking about.

And Alberta Girl also knows what she is talking about. The MSM's rapid sweep-over of Liberal misdeeds, is evidence of their pro-Liberal bias.

Speaking of argumentative fallacies, your continance of the 'flag debate', provides us with two more; a false connection and a diversion.

1) The private citizen's request is irrelevant to the action of the PM's decision. You are setting up a fallacious connection. Because a private citizen makes/does not make X request, does not mean that the PM does/does not, do Y action.

2)And, your diversionary attempt about the PM and the MND is equally fallacious. The PM has the right to decide about the PT flag, whose mode is changed from the rules outlined in the Canadian Heritage rules, only in special circumstances. Normal rules for the PT flag, when dealing with the military, are that the PT flag is lowered only on Nov. 11th.

To change these rules, for the military, would be a decision of the PM. But, surely, since he is not a dictator (unlike Chretien, who changed the flag policy, once, to foment anti-Americanism)..then, Harper would consider the wishes of the MND.
So- your attempt to divert the focus of attention from:
1) the normal rules about the PT flag, which permit lowering only on Nov 11th; and
2) the PM's ultimate authority, which, if the military is involved, OUGHT to include taking advice from his MND -

is an example of yet another fallacy.

ET, read and understand a comment before you try to demolish it.

The definitive word from the National Post today:

Why the flag stays high

Christopher McCreery
National Post

Thursday, April 27, 2006

The question of whether or not the flag flown from the Peace Tower should be lowered in honour of the sacrifice made by Canadian Forces personnel serving overseas has been clouded by grief and, to some degree, uninformed hysteria.

The grief is excusable and reveals the importance and esteem with which many Canadians hold our Armed Forces; the hysteria is inexcusable and requires clarification.

Historically, the flag on the Peace Tower -- often referred to as "the National Flag" -- is only lowered to half-mast upon the death of the Sovereign, a current or former governor-general, a current or former prime minister, a current or former senator, members of the Privy Council, the chief justice, lieutenant governors, serving MPs and on specific days such as Remembrance Day and Vimy Ridge Day. It is also lowered on national days of mourning, such as that held after the Sept. 11 attacks. (No doubt, some will balk at the half-masting for senators and MPs and not Canadian Forces members, but that is a side issue.)

This general policy is the norm in other countries, including Britain, France, the United States, Germany and South Africa, and was in place in Canada from Confederation until 2002, when four Canadians were killed in the now infamous friendly-fire incident at Tarnak Farm, near Kandahar, Afghanistan. At that time, the government decided to break with tradition and ordered the Peace Tower flag to be flown at half-mast.

This policy remained in place until November, 2005, when the Liberal government decided to revert to the traditional practice of not lowering the Peace Tower flag every time a Canadian is killed overseas. Thus, when Private B.S. Woodfield was returned to Canada in late November 2005, the Peace Tower flag was not lowered to half-mast -- yet there was no great outcry on the part of Canadians.

It is important to remember that even if the Peace Tower flag is not being flown at half-mast, flags at the Department of National Defence Headquarters, the Canadian base in Afghanistan, certain other Canadian Forces bases and, perhaps most importantly, the home base of the deceased, are. Thus, their sacrifice is not going unrecognized and is not dishonoured by the failure to lower the flag on the Peace Tower.

Veterans of the Second World War and Korea War are right to argue that if a policy of lowering the flag to half mast on the Peace Tower was in place during the conflicts that they so valiantly served in, the flag would have been permanently at half-mast those years. We must also not forget the more than 130 Canadian peacekeepers who have given their lives since 1948 -- the flag was not half-masted for them, either. The Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans' groups, with more than 250,000 veterans of the Second World War supporting them, believe that the traditional policy of not lowering the Peace Tower flag to half-mast is the correct one.

We have a national day of recognition for the service rendered by those who have served and died in the defence of our country -- Nov. 11, Remembrance Day. This is the day when all Canadians stop and reflect upon the sacrifices made not only by those who have recently lost their lives in Afghanistan, but in all of the conflicts that Canada has fought in. Would but all those people who are now engaged in hand-wringing over the decision to respect Canada's traditions and not lower the National Flag attend Remembrance Day services, the numbers would surely swell.

The point is this: When you see a flag at half-mast, you need to pause and reflect on the service given by the person who has died. But if it is routinely lowered to half-mast this effect is lost, and we become blind to the symbolism intended.

Perhaps the furor over the half-masting of the flag is a more general reaction to Canadian's shame and disgust over the systemic underfunding that the Canadian Forces has been subjected to over the past 15 years. Canada's military needs our support and better funding. If we seek to honour the brave service of our troops, we should take forward an appreciation of their sacrifice every day, and not reduce their service to an ignominious political debate about "flag up or flag down."

Dr. Christopher McCreery is the author of The Canadian Honours System, published by Dundurn Press, The Order of Canada: Its Origins, History and Development, published by University of Toronto Press, and a number of articles on flags and protocol.

© National Post 2006

agitfact - Right. I have read and understood your comments; that's why I pointed out, as have others, their logical fallacies.

agitfact,

"If you can name a post-1993 Liberal scandal this consumer of MSM news hasn't read or heard about, I will be happy to apologize."

"Cancun-gate" see Kate's earlier post

I don't remember any MSM showing the caskets of the 34 innocent Canadians murdered by Muslim fundamentalists on Sept 11 01.

Why the big fuss now?

How come during the few days just before the last election the MSM went out of there way to not report on the relocation program? But that wouldnt have anything to do bias? Right?