| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But if the conservatives are going to circle the wagons as if there is an American style problem, it will create the problem. |
I agree, and I'm not defending the Conservatives' current position on the media ban. |
How do you equate showing respect for the families with circling the wagons? |
To be clearer- the current position is to allow no media coverage whatsoever- this means that when the plane lands and there is a ceremony to unload the caskets, media are restricted from entering the base, as was the case in Trenton last weekend.
IMO, this crosses the line from 'respect to families' to 'hiding caskets from public view'. |
Well, I think a family's right to privacy and showing concern for their feelings trumps the public right to "view caskets". I for one, certainly don't want a bunch of strangers across the nation gawking at my dead son or daughter. Even less would I appreciate certain elements politicizing my child's death in order to score cheap political points (much as the opposition parties in the government are doing). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To allow a camera crew to film a military ceremony from a repsectful distance isn't too much to much to ask. You appear to suffer from the same tunnel vision so many others have on the issue- this doesn't have to be an "either/or" dilemma, there is middle ground here. But nobody wants to hear that, because the middle ground scores no political points and isn't much of a news story. Sad and pathetic for all- as I said at the beginning of this thread, among politicians (both govt and opposition) and media, there are no good guys to root for on this issue.
and BTW TUM, you should know that there have been soldier's families (of those killed in Afghanistan) who have been speaking out AGAINST the current government policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
To allow a camera crew to film a military ceremony from a repsectful distance isn't too much to much to ask. You appear to suffer from the same tunnel vision so many others have on the issue- this doesn't have to be an "either/or" dilemma, there is middle ground here. But nobody wants to hear that, because the middle ground scores no political points and isn't much of a news story. Sad and pathetic for all- as I said at the beginning of this thread, among politicians (both govt and opposition) and media, there are no good guys to root for on this issue.
and BTW TUM, you should know that there have been soldier's families (of those killed in Afghanistan) who have been speaking out AGAINST the current government policy. |
Care to provide links? If that is indeed the situation I would think then that the government should review these on a case by case situation. If the FAMILY WANTS the media to view their child being buried in a military ceremony they should certainly be entitled to that. Just as a family who DOESN'T want the media there should have THEIR wishes honoured. I meant they gave up a child who gave his life fighting for his country. I don't think that's too much to ask for. Anyway I was basing my statements on the link Mr BJWD provided.
BTW, how does "tunnel vision" equate to giving my own personal opinion on how I would feel on this issue, if it were MY child buried. That is specifically why I talked about my feelings were I one of these families. As regards tunnel vision, you don't think prejudging the government (see below) falls into that category? For all you know this policy could be done solely for the families sake (unlikely though you deem it). Seems to me that the tunnel vision here is mostly on one side, with people condeming Harper and disregarding his stated reasons. I am simply providing an alternative and ,( I feel) reasonable position.
.
I don't agree 100% with the government policy (see above) but I think it stems from a desire to err on the side of caution in regards to families' feelings rather than a desire to hide the truth.
[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I saw it on the news today MCpl Dinning's family, for one.
I think you are (deliberately?) misunderstanding the situation- we're not talking about a funeral here.
You know that, don't you?
We're talking about a ban on media covering the unloading of caskets at Trenton.
That is NOT the same thing as a reporter showing up at a funeral and sticking a mic in the face of a greiving family member.
I think you need to understand what the policy is before you leap to its defense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I never believe for a second that this had anything to do with respecting the privacy of the family. It has everything to do with wanting to avoid negative press about a was that many Canadians don't want to be part of. Even retired gerneral Lewis McKenzie complained about the negative press coverage of the Afghan mission. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I never believe for a second that this had anything to do with respecting the privacy of the family. |
i agree....
And though i'm NOT for the Iraq war, I DO think that Canadians (for now) should be in Afghanistan and should be supported better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
I saw it on the news today MCpl Dinning's family, for one.
(1) I think you are (deliberately?) misunderstanding the situation- we're not talking about a funeral here.
You know that, don't you?
(2) We're talking about a ban on media covering the unloading of caskets at Trenton.
That is NOT the same thing as a reporter showing up at a funeral and sticking a mic in the face of a greiving family member.
(3) I think you need to understand what the policy is before you leap to its defense. |
(numbers are mine)
1. Who said anything about a funeral? If you are referring to the words "military ceremony" (which you suggested the media being allowed "to film a military ceremony from a [respectful] distance isn't too much to much to ask") YOU bought that term up. I was merely responding to that line of reasoning. Please don't throw up tangents and then accuse people of misunderstanding the question when they reply to the tangent.
2. I am quite aware that we were talking about caskets being unloaded, at least until YOU inititated our little tete-a-tete about military ceremonies. So if we are agreed that this is not about funerals why did you bring that up out of thin air? Certainly I never said anything about funerals/military ceremonies on this thread until you made it a discussion point.
3. I am well aware of what the policy is. If you wish me to debate that, fine. But please don't initate discussions and then when responded to, basically say something like, Well that's not what we are talking about.
Now, I am not flaming you, merely straighting up the record. If you wish to interpret this post as a flame (seems you are getting a bit steamed) I can't stop you. But that was not its intention. I am simply remarking that to accuse me of misunderstanding the topic when I reply to a topic that you first bought up is a bit over the top. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1 and 2 are the same points, and 3 might as well be.
But yes, my post was in error because you didn't actually say "funeral", instead you said "being buried".
My mistake, I had assumed you meant a funeral when you talked about burying people.
Since we are talking about the same thing (my apologies for muddying the waters)- media coverage of caskets being offloaded at airbases- I must respectfully disagree with you and state once again that I don't believe the government should ban outright access to media to cover this. It certainly does have the appearance of wanting to set a precedence to figuratively "hide the body bags" (or 'circle the wagons') should the conflict escalate, and I believe this is the wrong message for the government to be telegraphing right now.
I find the pretext "it's out of respect for the families" to be weak because we are NOT talking about funerals here and because I do feel a respectful accommodation can be made that would satisfy families, media, public, opposition and government.
And, as I stated earlier- I am in agreement with the government's policy on not lowering the flag to half-mast except on Nov 11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the families disagreed with Harper, rather vehemently. They showed the coffin unloading footage as part of the funeral, and then it (along with clips of Eulogies) were rebroadcast on CTV today.
It seemed rather tacky and staged to me, but it also seemed that the family wanted it that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
