Canadian Prime Minister apes Bush — stops coverage of war casualties!

Published on April 26th, 2006

The new Conservative government barred the media from military ceremonies Tuesday at a Trenton, Ontario, air base, where the coffins of four troops killed in Afghanistan arrived last weekend.

The government also has decided to fly Canadian flags at half-staff only on Remembrance Day, celebrated November 11, for military fatalities, not each time a soldier dies.

The moves set off debate this week in Parliament in Ottawa on whether the government’s actions are motivated by a desire to downplay bad news.

The government is trying to make this a question of privacy for families of the fallen — and has decided it’s legitimate to shut out an event from the whole nation. Harper will probably invoke his conversations with Bush’s God as the next rationale for censorship.

32 users responded in " Canadian Prime Minister apes Bush — stops coverage of war casualties! "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Mike said, on April 26th, 2006 at 12:23 pm

Other than to throw the dead bodies of volunteers in the face of politicians who you disagree with, what is the public need for live coverage of a military funeral ceremony?

# 2 SN said, on April 26th, 2006 at 12:26 pm

“what is the public need for live coverage of a military funeral ceremony?”

What is the public need to keep coverage of military funeral ceremonies a state secret?!

# 3 neozeed said, on April 26th, 2006 at 12:32 pm

well its only going to get worse, they dont want this to turn into a daily event. The last thing you want to to give the dead a face, or a name. Then people will get sick of the whole thing. Im surprised the torries just dont pay some rable to fight the wars on our behalf.

# 4 RTaylor said, on April 26th, 2006 at 12:46 pm

There is a time to honor the fallen, and a time for political debate and demonstration. They aren’t the same. Filming the coffins of these kids may disturb survivors that have already paid dearly. I lived through Vietnam, and I’m not sure all the demonstrations accomplished anything. I know damn sure spitting and throwing garbage at a 20 year old combat survivor didn’t. I’m not defended this bloody mess in Iraq, just someone’s dead child, husband or father.

# 5 blank said, on April 26th, 2006 at 1:09 pm

Remember, they’re only banning access to even see the coffins in the US. If by chance someone WERE to get images of the coffins, it would be perfectly legal to show them.

No way could they tell the press “you can’t show these images”, because I still believe we have a Constitution and it still has a first amendment and all. Or did they get rid of that already?

# 6 Mike W said, on April 26th, 2006 at 1:14 pm

I am so sick of the media trying to make this a free speech / government-cover-up issue. It is simply out of respect for family, friends and military comrads. People grieving and crying don’t need some a-hole’s camera in their face. Let them say goodbye in peace.

The media was not barred from reporting the deaths, or that the bodies were returning home or that the funerals were happening on a specific day. So how is this a cover up? They are just barred from shooting pictures at the funeral.

Listen to interviews with the soldiers when asked if they want the media at the funerals. The answer I have seen is always a resounding NO!

# 7 GM said, on April 26th, 2006 at 1:32 pm

TV coverage of this type of ceremony makes the deaths less abstract. I generally despise the news media for shoving cameras into the faces of the grieving, but a properly restrained and dignified coverage of these military ceremonies is entirely approprate.

# 8 malren said, on April 26th, 2006 at 1:34 pm

SN, answer the question without asking a question. Why do you feel it’s necessary to parade coffins on TV and in the papers? Be specific.

Next question: If the families say they don’t want it, who are you to question them?

# 9 robert patterson said, on April 26th, 2006 at 1:38 pm

John, the formating of your site sucks! Like the italics in the blue boxes?

Could it be any harder to read? It makes you look totally amatuer hour for a guy who’s been involved with technology forever.

Dude, get some help. Please!

# 10 doug said, on April 26th, 2006 at 1:48 pm

I think it is absolutely essential to cover military funerals and the arrival of coffins from overseas. casualties have to be prevented from becoming an abstraction – just a new number in the paper every day.

People need to be reminded of the cost.

# 11 joshua said, on April 26th, 2006 at 1:54 pm

Hard to call it censorship when the public and the press knew these men died.
If people want to have some sort of memorial for these men, fine. But that dosen’t mean the press has to be at the ceremonies at the base.
I think a free press is right up there after free speech and assembly, but I don’t agree that the press needs to be involved in everything they want just to satisfy some interest(usually an agenda or ratings).
If the families want a public show, then fine, when they bury their loved one’s then do it.

I equate the presses need to have cameras and talking heads at funerals as much of an intrusion at a time of family grief almost with the Rev, Phelps parading at funerals of gay soldiers.

Jesus, let these people be in peace, unless they request you to be there.

# 12 Sounds The Alarm said, on April 26th, 2006 at 2:11 pm

I like what the News Hour does on PBS – just shows their faces with out comment.

# 13 Anthony said, on April 26th, 2006 at 3:23 pm

The media has no respect for news. Just the ratings it gets them. They don’t cover the dead because it makes for good news (it doesn’t unless one of the dead is from the local area). They do it because it gets ratings (along with all the other negative news).

# 14 SN said, on April 26th, 2006 at 4:06 pm

“The media has no respect for news. They do it because it gets ratings.”

So what you’re saying is that the media shows funerals solely because of ratings. And it only makes sense that high ratings indicate that the public wants to watch the particular show. Therefore, the Canadian government is going out of their way to ensure that its citizens do not get what they want.

# 15 Milo said, on April 26th, 2006 at 4:10 pm

Canadian coverage of these ceremonies, paid for by the PUBLIC and intended as a PUBLIC honour for the dead, was always respectful. Those talking about invasiveness and sensationalism have obviously never seen one.

Notice how everyone in favour ignores not flying the parliament hill flag at half mast?

# 16 SN said, on April 26th, 2006 at 4:10 pm

“Why do you feel it’s necessary to parade coffins on TV and in the papers?”

I never would watch. But that’s only me. It appears that some people do want to watch. Now answer this: Why does the government feel a need to censor funerals of soldiers?! And why do you feel a need to support censorship? If the government is tired of parading dead soldiers through the streets, maybe they should pull out of the war.

“If the families say they don’t want it, who are you to question them?”

My family wants lots of things. E.g., my son would love a solid gold rocket car, but that doesn’t mean he’ll get one.

# 17 joshua said, on April 26th, 2006 at 4:54 pm

sn…..I could give a rats a** what your son wants materialistly.
If a persons family dosen’t want the media attending or making film of their family members funeral, then the media should damn well NOT be there, or as far away as the police can keep them legally.

PBS has the right idea….mention the soldiers name, when he/she died and show a photo of that person. If that isn’t enough to satisfy the media, then tough nuts.

smartalix……if people don’t know roughly what the count of our(American) casualties are, then they don’t want to know. Every newspaper in the country, along with every broadcast media news tells us daily, many times daily, what it is. As to the Iragi dead, since when did goverment report on those casualties? I keep going over news clips from the Korean, Vietnamese and WWII and can’t find those figures. Long AFTER those wars were over, then the media reported the civilian casualties.

milo……it dosen’t matter who’s paying for the soldiers burial, if the family dosen’t want you or the media there, you have NO RIGHT to be there, period. If a Department of Motor Vehicles employee dies in her/his bed, are you or the media entitled to crash the funeral just because the person was paid with public money????…..hell no!!!!!
Part of the contract goverment makes with those who serve in the military is the benifit of a paid funeral while on active duty, it’s one of the *perks* if you want to call it that. But according to your theory, if a goverment worker is given a hot tub as part of their contract that means your entitled to use it, just because it was paid for with public money……your wrong.

# 18 SN said, on April 26th, 2006 at 5:48 pm

“sn…..I could give a rats a** what your son wants materialistly.”

I agree, that’s why I said it sarcastically. The inability to recognize humor is evidence of lack of intelligence. You might want to look into that.

“If a persons family dosen’t want the media attending or making film of their family members funeral, then the media should damn well NOT be there, or as far away as the police can keep them legally.”

Why should I or anyone give a rat’s a** what the family wants? If the citizens of Canada want to honor their dead soldiers and watch the proceedings on television, what right does the family have to say “no”? I want you to cite a law that supports what you’re saying.

# 19 Dave Boulay said, on April 26th, 2006 at 6:53 pm

I am a Canadian, I live within 10 minutes of Trenton, Ontario. ITrenton is a very small place (around 20 000 people) So everyone there is in the military or connected to it in some way, lots of Conservative votes here.
Many people are disgusted (yes, disgusted) in what PM Stephen Harper has done, there are probably going to be some demonstrations at Parlaiment in the next few weeks. People are saying that Mr. Harper is Bush’s puppet… blah blah, and if you can’t tell MANY Canadians do not like President Bush, the last time he came to Canada he wasn’t greeted very well.

# 20 Gary Marks said, on April 26th, 2006 at 7:17 pm

So far, all the assertions I’ve seen that some of the families want no media coverage of the military ceremonies honoring fallen soldiers have come from the Canadian government itself. I’m skeptical if that’s even true. I think the change in policy now puts any family who wants a public tribute or acknowledgement of their sacrifice in the uncomfortable position of having to seek it out in the media. I’m sure this will have the desired suppressive effect.

I have to say, I’m a little surprised at the charges of “cameras in their face” media. Are the Canadian media really that exploitive, or is that a bit of an exaggeration? I truly hope coverage hasn’t been that undignified and offensive. You would think that officials at a military base could keep the media under control, short of an outright ban.

# 21 Milo said, on April 26th, 2006 at 7:20 pm

“milo……it dosen’t matter who’s paying for the soldiers burial, if the family dosen’t want you or the media there, you have NO RIGHT to be there, period.”

joshua I have no patience for people who pretend not to understand what is said to them. I didn’t say that and neither did the article this blog links to. You know that very well.

# 22 W said, on April 26th, 2006 at 8:20 pm

“Why should I or anyone give a rat’s a** what the family wants? If the citizens of Canada want to honor their dead soldiers and watch the proceedings on television, what right does the family have to say “no”? I want you to cite a law that supports what you’re saying.”

As an actual Canadian, I’m pretty surprised by that statement. I’d consider it rude and in extremely poor taste for the media to force their way into a funeral or other cermony if the family didn’t support it. As for your “show me a law” statement, I’m fairly confident that our privacy laws would easily permit the family to say “no” to any media coverage they did not desire, so long as the funeral or cermonies are not themselves public, and last time I checked they were not.

The debate is about whether or not the goverment has the same ability to bar the media coverage.

# 23 Milo said, on April 26th, 2006 at 8:49 pm

Now my own countrymen are doing it!

Ok, here’s the quote form the story, emphasis mine:

“The new Conservative government barred the media from MILITARY CEREMONIES, MILITARY CEREMONIES, MILITARY CEREMONIES, MILITARY CEREMONIES,Tuesday at a Trenton, Ontario, air base, “

So just in case you missed it these are MILITARY CEREMONIES, THEY ARE NOT FUNERALS, once again, MILITARY CEREMONIES, NOT FUNERALS.

The term for the ceremony is repatriation BTW.

# 24 joshua said, on April 27th, 2006 at 1:44 am

sorry for not recognising sarcasm sn. It is sometimes a bit difficult to see it in print. Why does there have to be a law to forbid coverage of a furneral? Just respect for the family’s wishes should be enough.

But as I said earlier….is it censorship to not allow media coverage of the ceremonies? I don’t think so, since the media is aware of the deaths and as the article said were able to take footage of the caskets being taken into the aircraft.

Milo…..same as before….funeral or ceremony, the fact that the military is publically financed has nothing to do with what can or can’t be taped or shown on camera by the media. And as the military mentioned……that some families want the ceremonies public and some don’t…..this is what I said earlier also……if the families want it…then fine. Not all do.
This arriving ceremony was put off limits to media for the sake of all families, but the military didn’t or isn’t trying to bar the media from ceremonies that they are invited to by the families.

I do want to apologise for flaming both of you……today hasn’t been a good day for me and I’m afraid I have been out of sorts all day.

# 25 JimS said, on April 27th, 2006 at 4:21 am

When the coffins are carried from the plane, across the tarmac to the waiting hearse, the “repatriation ceremony” as stated above, should to my way of thinking, be open to the public and the media. The public deserves a chance to morn, and pay respect to our country’s fallen. These soldiers belong to us, too. Whether we agree with the politics or not, these people died in service to our country. They paid the ultimate price for us, all of us. They deserve at least a moments notice, from each of us, and we deserve the right to pay it to them. I’m sorry if that upsets the family of the soldier, but when they gave their son or daughter to the military, they gave them to us, all of us collectively. Collectively, we should have the right, to see the flag draped coffins, morn, and pay our respect. It’s more than a right, it should be a responsibility. These are people that we will eventually build a monument to honor. They do, in part, belong to us.

Photographs are important too. Ever since the camera was invented, pictures have been an important tool for documenting our history. Documenting, the best we can, all angles, of war, is important for our history, and for our collective psyche. A picture of a flag draped coffin, will be a solemn image, as it should be. It is part of the cost of going to war. It is part of history. History needs to contain the good and the bad.

Yes, it’s possible that a picture of a flag draped coffin could become an iconic image, to people who oppose this war. It is probably at least as likely that the picture of the falling statue of Saddam will be an iconic image for those who support the war. As for those against the war, I’d sure think that the image of pres Bush standing on the deck of the aircraft carrier, announcing “mission accomplished”, would be a much stronger icon, than a dozen flag draped coffins pictured together.

The actual funeral is a time in which the whole World, should respect the wishes of the family. Collectively or alone, we don’t have any rights to the soldier, during the funeral service. The family decides whether to share with us or not.

Comparing a soldier who dies in combat, with the death of every other civil servant, as was mentioned in one of the posts, is just being silly, although; if the civil servant is killed during the regular commission of his or her work, then it is a situation that probably deserves our attention and respect. The family might have to share a little. I think we tend to sometimes name buildings in honor of these unfortunate people.

I’d also like to mention that I like the way PBS handles it. A moment of silence, a picture, a name, rank, age, and hometown.

# 26 W said, on April 27th, 2006 at 4:48 am

“So just in case you missed it these are MILITARY CEREMONIES, THEY ARE NOT FUNERALS, once again, MILITARY CEREMONIES, NOT FUNERALS.”

I didn’t miss it. I fully understand the purpose of the ceremony. But the last time I checked cermonies performed on a military base were not generally open to the public for viewing.

If you’ve ever actually read the notices the military posts regarding funeral and repatriation ceremonies you’ll note that the public and media has to be invited to view the ceremony. If they are not then it’s a private ceremony. Simple as that.

# 27 Mike said, on April 27th, 2006 at 7:06 am

Having served 8 yrs in the Marine Corps and knowing people who have either died or are now crippled, I will tell you JimS, that I am not your damned poster boy. And my body doesn’t belong to you or anybody else in this country but me, so please spare me all this trite, collectivist crap.

I would willingly risk my life to defend our system of republican government, but I couldn’t give a shit less about most of the people in this country. Too man Americans are idiots with no clue, who eagerly go to the polls to vote for whatever power-seeking fool will promise them the most benefits, regardless of the ultimate cost. If they think I would die for them, they are seriously mistaken.

# 28 Milo said, on April 27th, 2006 at 8:42 am

“I didn’t miss it.”

You called it a funeral. You missed it because it’s not a funeral. Now you’re just lying.

# 29 JimS said, on April 27th, 2006 at 11:56 am

“Having served 8 yrs in the Marine Corps and knowing people who have either died or are now crippled, I will tell you JimS, that I am not your damned poster boy. And my body doesn’t belong to you or anybody else in this country but me, so please spare me all this trite, collectivist crap.” – Mike

Cool beans, go out and get yourself killed in combat, and we’ll skip putting your name on the memorial.

# 30 joshua said, on April 27th, 2006 at 1:59 pm

#31…milo…..what *w* said was….”funeral or other ceremonies”.

not once, but all through his post. Maybe you should heed your own admonishment about reading and understanding a post or article.

# 31 Bruce IV said, on April 27th, 2006 at 4:14 pm

Just b/c no one is mentioning the halting of the flag lowering on Parliament Hill, I think it’s a good idea – we are, like it or not, at war – this means soldiers will die – possibly many of them – extending this (new) practice of lowering the flag to a possible future war on the scale of WW I or II, the flag would never be all the way up the mast – the government is right, the death of one soldier, however tragic, is not a national tragedy. As for press and cameras at the repatriation ceremonies, someone in gov’t poll the troops, and take their policy suggestion and do that – it is, in the end, their ceremony, even if they never see it.

# 32 Milo said, on April 27th, 2006 at 5:17 pm

joshua: funerals are not part of this discussion at all because we’ve never had the media at funerals and the article posted isn’t about funerals.

Tell you what. You joshua find any article covering this where it says that access to funerals is the issue and then that will prove me wrong. I’m sure you’ll spare the effort because you’re so concerned that you have to respond for other people.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!