Tories Keep Media Away From Coffins

Or maybe the media is kept away from the events in respect for the families. It seems most of the active soldiers want this policy.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/04/26/soldiers-return-media060426.html">http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/04/26/soldiers-return-media060426.html</a><br />
<br />
And if you're hungry for photos of the caskets, the media is still able to get those from the fenceline.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146001827001&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154">http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146001827001&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154</a><br />
<br />
So if their policy was an attempt to hide the coffins, they shouldn't unload the plane on the tarmac in full view of the media. They should have done that in a hangar. But they didn't. What they did do is stop the media from pushing their cameras and microphones in front of a grieving spouse or parent and asking the obligitory stupid question of "How does this make you feel". Additionally, the media had FULL coverage of the sendoff from Afghanistan. Pictures, access, everything. Funny, the Star didn't make a big deal of those pictures and they have a reporter right on the base. <br />
<br />
Your lamentations smell of political expediency and the little boy that cried wolf.

You say:
“Or maybe the media is kept away from the events in respect for the families. It seems most of the active soldiers want this policy.”

First, the article 4Candada submitted quoted a Defence Dept. source as reporting that this “new” restriction is a departure from standard protocol. Are we to believe until this week, the DND has routinely disrespected the families of the fallen, an oversight Harper has just now corrected? In the same week he addressed the flag oversight too? Two measures, occurring in the same time frame, that have the effect of reducing the visual symbolism of the toll the Afghan mission has on Canada in human terms. That’s what has occurred, the rest is spin.

Second, that the claim is “most of the soldiers want this policy” is hardly a surprise, but how relevant is it? How do the wishes of the soldiers weigh up against the right of the media to report to Canadians, and the obligation of a democratic government not to act as a centralized source of control over what news becomes public consumption. The governments’ restriction of the media is a legitimate concern, and deserves not to trivialized like this:

“And if you're hungry for photos of the caskets, the media is still able to get those from the fenceline.”

No on is “hungry for casket photos” and you providing a link to pictures that occurred despite the new restrictions is hardly a viable alternative to an unfettered media.

"Or maybe the media is kept away from the events in respect for the families. It seems most of the active soldiers want this policy."

Where did you get that information? The article states "Many" which is only backed up by:

"But many of soldiers interviewed by CBC News in Afghanistan said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision was the right one, given the emotions relatives must be experiencing."

How many soldiers were interviewed? 2, 12, 80, 2600? Who chose which soldiers were to be interviewed? Did the journalist just happen across people or were they assigned to be interviewed?

Fact is, we don't know. As long as we don't know the above we also cannot know the wishes of "most" active duty members. I would hazard a guess that those who agree with the mission in afghanistan either agree with harper or are ambivilent about it and that those who are against the occupation would want the photos taken. But thats just a guess.

When it is the wishes of the soldiers that are the ones in harms way, their wishes of the handling of their bodies definitely come before the wants of the media. The caskets are not hidden, the pictures can be taken from the fence or before they board the plane in Afghanistan. We know exactly how many of our people have died in Afghanistan, and we will continue to know.

As for the flag, only the Liberals (and it seems you) could in their hubris believe that the lowering of the flag to half mast was traditional. Perhaps you should ask the vets of Bosnia or any other recent conflict if the flag was lowered when their bodies returned. The Libs did not have a consistent policy for this. The flags were not lowered every time a soldier was killed. Now they are only lowered on November 11th. Consistently. That has nothing to do with visibility of casualties in Afghanistan.

Anyone that knows how the military operates would know that soldiers are not permitted to speak out against their officers. They are required to support the positions of the hierarchy and ultimately those of the Chief of Defence Staff. The Chief of Defence Staff's job is to implement the policies of the government and he does not have the freedom to express his own opinions. In the end, the soldiers must speak with the voice of the government, in this case the prime minister. The only way they can legitimately speak out is my resigning.

In other words, there is no freedom of speech in a case like this for those on active service. To allow such freedom would be seen as a loss of discipline and control by the hierarchy.

It's not the wishes of soldiers VS the media, it is about the government restricting the press. Given that the caskets could still be photographed you might wonder that Harper needed to interfere at all, and yet he reached out at the same time as reversing the flag protocol back to it's former status. That coupled with the timing that these changes should occur when four soldiers are lost in one day, should clue you in to the fact that measures are about damage control and not propriety. Next time the casualties are high in toll, let's see if they opt for the open tarmac again, or if the media are held even further away than pressing their noses to the fence.

I missed the part where I claimed lowering the flag to half mast was traditional. To be fair, it might well be the more proper course of action, I do not however have any allusions that propriety was the motivation behind the change. The change "back" in flag protocol, and the failed attempt to restrict the media was damage control, propriety if you believe these changes are an improvement, is just a happy coincidence.