Barring Trenton images: PMO political

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservative government has taken steps to keep the public from seeing images of flag-draped coffins when fallen soldiers are returned home from Afghanistan.

For the first time since the Afghan mission began, the government will shut down an Ontario airfield when the remains of four soldiers killed over the weekend are returned Tuesday. Government officials said the new directive is permanent.

It echoes a policy attempted by the Bush administration. Concerns that a stream of images of coffins draped in the Stars and Stripes would diminish public support for the Iraq war prompted the White House to impose a publication ban.

With Canadian public opinion evenly divided on the Afghan mission, it appears the federal government may have similar political concerns.

The move comes after Canada suffered its worst one-day combat loss since the Korean war, when four soldiers were killed last weekend in a roadside explosion.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor insisted politics had nothing to do with closing the Trenton air base for Tuesday's return ceremony.

"I have made the most appropriate decision during this most emotional time for the families," O'Connor said.

"The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces."

Senior government officials said the decision to restrict access to CFB Trenton was O'Connor's.

But other government sources said the edict came directly from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office, and that defence brass were ordered to keep the media at bay.

Canada's death toll in Afghanistan has reached 16 since 2002, and Conservative government officials fear the mounting casualties could present a political problem.

The government took a pounding from the opposition Monday for ending the Liberals' recent practice of lowering Parliament Hill flags when soldiers are killed.

Liberals called the move "callous." And they said the decision to restrict viewing of soldiers' caskets was unprecedented for a Canadian prime minister.

"He has lifted a page from the Bush book and borrowed the Bush modus operandi," said Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.

"Dare I say president Harper is following in the footsteps of President Bush?

"(He wants the tragedy) out of sight, so that possibly it might remain out of mind."

MP Robert Thibault, who supports the Afghan mission, said an increasing body count is no reason to stop lowering the Peace Tower flag or shield Canadians from the human cost of the conflict.

But Conservative MP Brian Pallister said the situation in Afghanistan has changed, and so must the government response.

Canadian soldiers are "closer to the action" that at any time in recent years, he said, and the impact of casualties returning home must be taken into account.

"That really is the challenge in this: how do you give credit and honour those who made a sacrifice, on the one hand, without hyping the fear of more casualties in the future in the minds of Canadians?"

On the weekend, retired major general Lewis MacKenzie predicted "an adjustment in the political reaction" given the increasingly likelihood of more frequent casualties.

"You don't have to have the entire symbolic leadership of the forces and the nation for the fatalities coming back," said MacKenzie, a one-time federal Progressive Conservative candidate.

"I don't know how you scale back the media," he added.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n042504A.xml

All hail Governor Harper and President Bush.

The conservatives can do all they want but I think they are going to fall on Afghanistan if they continue down this route.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
The war is only a continuation of commitments made during the previous majority government. If the opposition wanted to debate issues surrounding the war why didn't they show up in parliament before Easter for the session they demanded?
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Re: RE: Barring Trenton images: PMO political

Kreskin said:
The war is only a continuation of commitments made during the previous majority government. If the opposition wanted to debate issues surrounding the war why didn't they show up in parliament before Easter for the session they demanded?

not that it has anything to do with the matter at hand but that reminds me. you never DID answer my question...

BitWhys said:
if only 8 NDP showed up for the debate how did 10 of them manage to speak?

Dawn Black
Peter Stoffer
Yvon Godin
Jack Layton
Alexa McDonough
Bill Siksay
Alex Atamanenko
Libby Davies
Paul Dewar
Peggy Nash
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I wondered about that too, BitWhys...I just thought it was a slip up.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
I watched the debate on cpac, and at one point in time almost every NDP seat was filled, there was several empty spot but based on each size of the parties, the NDP was the most numerous followed by the cons and then Bloc and several Libs from what I saw.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
The NDP started with 8, then when Layton spoke they all came in as a show of support. IMO it doesn't make for much of a debate when they only show when Layton and a few NDPers speak then leave when everyone else gets their turn. This was an opportunity to lay a bunch of cards on the table but instead the political football is tossed in the media.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Re: RE: Barring Trenton images: PMO political

doesn't sound like much of a slip-up to me
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Re: Debate on Mission in Afghanistan

I would suggest that the presence of every Member of Parliament in the House of Commons when the House considered the take-note debate on the mission in the Islamic Republic in Afghanistan would have been unnecessary. We should please keep in mind that each member could only speak once on the question at hand; we should also keep in mind that, given the amount of time for which the debate was scheduled to take, only twenty-four members could have spoken and used their entire time.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
I agree with paradox as it is common knowledge that many members can not come to debates because of concerns in there area. Considering they have to fly across the nation to be there, if there is no vote or if the government won't fall from it and others can bring up there arguments they do not need to attended. That goes with all parties, as all of them often have few members show up.