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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.