« Home | Is Iran asking for it, and if so, why? » | AMS Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorol... » | Shame on you, Dalhousie University! » | Iran, the SCO, and the NPT » | The Vatican and AIDS: common sense vs infallibilit... » | I knew it! » | Get your Stinking Paws Off Me, You Damn Dirty Ape!... » | Lest we remember » | This Blog Brought to You By... » | A Green Goes Nuclear »

Flags a' flappin'

In a recent post on what has been termed the "flag flap" I said that I really wasn't sure how I stood. Well, I'm not sure if I actually lied then, if my thoughts evolved through the week, or if I just hadn't thought things through, but in reading other posts and participating as a commentator on a couple of conversations (here and here) I think that it has become obvious that I have in fact chosen a side.

First, I would like to state up front that the debate, at least that which I've seen, has for the most part maintained the civil tone that it deserves. There are a few notable exceptions but I will not point them out - they deserve to get no further attention and I'm not going to provide them with hits. Don't get me wrong - I love animated discussion and I understand that it can get a little heated sometimes, but in some cases the tone of even the original posts were bathed in invective and ad hominem attacks. Armchair chickenhawk cowards with axes to grind.

I think that in originally considering the subject, I underestimated the importance of the ceremony of lowering the flag; the honour that it represents and the respect that it invokes. It is an act of love and respect for the families of the fallen and a token of appreciation for those that still serve. In short it is the very least we can do. As Rick Mercer points out in his blog, if we are going to have to lower the flag when a party apparatchik like Michael Fortier dies, then why on earth not for someone that actually deserves it?

Prime Minister Harper, lower the damned flags and publicly admit that you made a mistake. There are those out there that might mistake you for human if you did.

As for the media at the airport in Trenton - give it a rest. That absolutely is a time for the families to begin the real grieving; Harper has this one right. That's right, you read it right - I said "Harper has it right". Me! This is not a move to hide the dead. If the media suddenly becomes barred from showing the services in Kandahar, then I'll get worried, but not now. This is for the families.

That he has made these two decisions so close together cannot be coincidence, but I'm not sure of the motivation behind them yet. Is he simply being an absolute control freak as it appears in some of his other actions? Perhaps. Or does he actually want to hide the real cost of the war from Canadians? Also possible, but only time will tell.

I would like to say here that if we had the chance to vote on our participation in Afghanistan we would be more likely to openly accept the deaths as part of the cost, because we would bear some of the responsibility for being involved. As it is now, we are dragged into a war by them and our brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters get to pay the price. It's too easy an argument to make, and one that I'm sure he's paying attention to.

And one that I'm sure he would do anything to avoid.

Well said - I think people are forgetting the fact that both lowering the flags and allowing the families some privacy are acts of respect. Harper has made a mistake, yes, but I think he has also done something right. Batting .500 is certainly better than my prior expectation.

I think you are being naive. The families never asked for privacy nor did the military. This is not about respecting the families. Read Rosie Dimanno ( not someone I usually agree with) on this:http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146001826924&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907621263

Good points, but I don't think I'm being naive. I agree with Dimanno that this is in some way an issue of "shared mourning", however, the fact of the matter is that the families deserve privacy. From what I've read so far, the ceremonies in-theatre will still be televised. (For however long)

I think that I made it clear in my post that I am suspicious of Harper's and O'Lobbyist's motives, but I am not going to jump to conclusions yet.

Just wondering that maybe there is a compromise here that might serve the stated goals of boths sides of the cameras-in-Trenton debate. Could we somehow arrange it so the appropriate dignitaries be present, with media, but keep the media at a distance from the families?

The reason for my flip in position from my post is that I heard the father of Marc Leger, who was killed a few years ago. He said that it was important and a great comfort to them that Jean Chretien was there with them at that time.

There really should be a way to balance both sides of this debate equitably. However, if Harper's goal is to get the faces of the dead off of the television because he's preparing us for more, then no deal will be possible. I leave that option open, because it is so obvious.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link