Lowering the flag for slain soldiers?

[betsy]

Apparently, family of one of the slain soldiers in Afghanistan is requesting that the flag be lowered. Jane Taber on Question Period criticised Kenny for not acquiescing to the request, saying "how hard is that to do?"

Altho we want to honor these men, I think we can do it through other ways.

If we lower the flag for one...then we have to lower it for everyone who dies. Since we are at war, the flag could end up being at half-mast most of the time! And what about law enforcers who died in the line of duties....shouldn't they be honored the same way too?

Isn't this gesture reserved for statesmen and other dignitaries?

[August1991]

I don't believe it was done in the Korean War and certainly not during the World Wars, unless the flag flew at half-mast during the whole time.

I think the tradition is to fly the flag at half-mast on 11 November only.

IMO, the local community may choose to fly the flag at half-mast but I don't think it should be done in federal institutions.

The tradition, if we can call it that, of lowering Parliament's flags to honour Canada's war dead is very recent. In fact, it stems only from 2002 when the Jean Chretien government ordered the Maple Leaf to half-mast for the four Canadian infantrymen killed by so-called friendly fire while on a training mission in Afghanistan.

CBC.

[margrace]

And besides Mr. Bush likes to keep the deaths out of the public eye doesn't he. Mr. Harper has to tow the line.

[Leafless]

I have heard a local talk show hosts to-day make the same request for Mr. harper to lower the flag.

All these request ( driven by emotion) do amplified by the media is embarrass our present Conservative government.

I to think that special day government has set aside (Nov.11) to honour Canada's war dead is all that is required.

[geoffrey]

Our soliders aren't traditionally honoured by the lowered flag, but our law enforcers have been.

Is it neccessary, I don't know. Would it be nice, absolutely. I can't see why not.

[uOttawaMan]

If we are truly at war, which I believe we are, we should not lower our flag to half mast.

There is every indication that there will be more , if not many more casulties in Afghanistan, and having the flag lowered for a majority of the time takes away from its reverent status. It would become a norm, which is definetly not what we as a society should want.

[betsy]

And besides Mr. Bush likes to keep the deaths out of the public eye doesn't he. Mr. Harper has to tow the line.

That's sensible....keeping the deaths out of the public eye...especially when you're at war. Right now, the way our media cover it, it sort of seem like they're keeping score as in hockey.

Anti-war and anti-Bush/anti-Harper are only too quick using the dead as heat-seeking guided missiles targetted towards Bush, and to say "I told you so....". The more casualties the better? That they almost seem to want it...and secretly gleeful about it. Of course, they're all in the guise of extensive "mourning"...but politicized nevertheless. Talk about "meat."

I noticed that Canadian media seem to have a morbid fascination with deaths actually, not only among soldiers of war. The coverage of the rituals....from the wake...to the funerals...some coverage run for more than a week!

Well I like the answer of a top military brass when asked about the deaths of these soldiers and how our men feel (forgot the exact question). He said the men are "saddened by it...but there will be no grieving or any touchy-feeling about it."

That's how it should be at war. Turn that emotion for fuel at combat! Sheeesh!

[betsy]

IMO, the local community may choose to fly the flag at half-mast but I don't think it should be done in federal institutions.

I agree. Hometowns honoring their own soldiers at half-mast has a deep meaning. These are their own sons and daughters...most likely known by or acquainted with other locals, with families and attachments in the community....not just some faceless strangers.

And yes it's true as one other poster mentioned, if we always have the federal flag at half-mast (since we're at war and therefore more casualties can be expected), it will lose its meaning.

If there is a need to publicly show some solidarity....can we not just have a moment of silence nationwide?

[Nocrap]

IMO, the local community may choose to fly the flag at half-mast but I don't think it should be done in federal institutions.

I agree. Hometowns honoring their own soldiers at half-mast has a deep meaning. These are their own sons and daughters...most likely known by or acquainted with other locals, with families and attachments in the community....not just some faceless strangers.

And yes it's true as one other poster mentioned, if we always have the federal flag at half-mast (since we're at war and therefore more casualties can be expected), it will lose its meaning.

If there is a need to publicly show some solidarity....can we not just have a moment of silence nationwide?

Perhaps that's the problem. They shouldn't be diminished to 'faceless strangers', and maybe flying our flag at half mast thoroughout the deployment is not such a bad thing. It will remind the rest of us that , like it or not, we are at war.

The CPC constantly tell us that the Liberals were the first to send our soildiers to Afghanistan, but the original mission was to be Nato led. Since Harper took the realm, our soldiers are now led by the Americans INTO battle, rather than trying to keep the peace. If he is so gungho to put them in such a situation to please his US buddies, the least he can do is honour them.

If the families want the flag at half mast, I don't see the harm.

[KrustyKidd]

If the families want the flag at half mast, I don't see the harm.

And, for every person that dies on the highways, dropping a forklift over a loading dock, stumbling off a ladder or whatever. Hell, let's just dump the flag in the toilet. Hell, why have a flag at all if every old bugger that kicks off from rectal cancer gets a half masted planting? Where do you draw the line?

I had always thought that in times of peace, an event such as a publicized death was an event, and as such, lesser profile people are elevated to state status with a half staff flag. However, when it becomes more and more common, the bar gets raised. It's not out of political expedience but rather common sense.

If he is so gungho to put them in such a situation to please his US buddies, the least he can do is honour them.

To counter this comment which has no place in this thread I will say we are in a battle for Western Civillization. The fact that you don't know it doesn't change it. Carry on as if normal. Out.

[scribblet]

It is my understanding that traditionally parliament never lowered the flag to half-staff ( a mast is on a ship) it was the liberals who broke the tradition.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realityc...06sheppard.html

Three Canadian soldiers were killed last month in Afghanistan and for none of them were the flags on Parliament Hill lowered to half-mast. A mistake by the new Conservative administration? A show of disrespect? Actually, probably quite the opposite.

The flag flies at half-mast on the Peace Tower in Ottawa on April 18, 2002, in honour of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

The tradition, if we can call it that, of lowering Parliament's flags to honour Canada's war dead is very recent. In fact, it stems only from 2002 when the Jean Chretien government ordered the Maple Leaf to half-mast for the four Canadian infantrymen killed by so-called friendly fire while on a training mission in Afghanistan.

It continued for the next three soldiers who died in Afghanistan – Sgt. Robert Short and Cpl. Robbie Beerenfenger were killed when their vehicle struck a land mine; Cpl. Jamie Murphy died after a suicide bombing.

But the Peace Tower flag was not lowered when Pte. Braun Woodfield was killed in November in Afghanistan, when his armoured vehicle rolled over, and the practice has not been picked up now that the Conservatives are in office

BTW Margrace, it has nothing to do with Bush.

[betsy]

If he is so gungho to put them in such a situation to please his US buddies, the least he can do is honour them.

Is that the only way you know how to honour someone?

Lowering the flag at half-mast for every soldier who dies will eventually render that gesture meaningless.

Typical Liberal outlook...all pomp and no substance! Same as all talk and no action!

[scribblet]

If he is so gungho to put them in such a situation to please his US buddies, the least he can do is honour them.

Is that the only way you know how to honour someone?

Lowering the flag at half-mast for every soldier who dies will eventually render that gesture meaningless.

Typical Liberal outlook...all pomp and no substance! Same as all talk and no action!

Typical for sure. I doubt that neither Harper nor Martin were gung ho to put our soldiers in harms way to please Bush. Just maybe they are doing it for freedom, and as a woman we know what will happen to the women if the troops leave.

As far as I'm concerned as soon as someone brings out the Bush bashing rhetoric it lowers their credibility.

There's a good article in the NP today: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...7e-594ba6e609bd

-snip-

Set amid news from the front, a debate about the placement of our flag may seem trivial. Yet it is a debate worth having, for it symbolizes the larger discussion taking place in Canada about our role in Afghanistan.

That debate may be defined thus: Are we at war against the Taliban, or are we at peace? If the former, then military casualties are an expected, if tragic, consequence of our deployment. If the latter, and our soldiers are to be seen as peacekeepers, not combatants, then every death should be regarded as an aberration and, therefore, an occasion for national anguish and soul-searching.

We believe the answer is clear: Canada, like the rest of the civilized world, is at war -- not only against the Taliban, but also against every other entity that seeks to pervert Islam into an excuse for senseless slaughter. It is also a war to bring stability and freedom to Afghan society. In this war, as in all wars, people will be killed. And sometimes, those people will be Canadian.

[fixer1]

Canada is at war in Afghanistan, and in war we do not lower our flag for individual deaths but we do honour all thise who gave collectively on Rememberence Day. This has long been the accepted course in these matters and I do not see any reason to change such at this time. I am all for showing honour and gratitude in these type of things, but just as the fighting of a war is a things where we have our integrated fighting forces, out there as a team, and no one man is going to be the linch pin to stop our resolve. They fight as a unit and yes some will die in the effort. We owe them a lot. But not on an individual basis. That is why we have a day of Rememberance for those who have died in the cause of keeping Canada a free nation and the ability to seek out our dreams and achieve them accordingly. On that day we do remember and we do lower the flag. It is our way and has been for nearly 9 decades. No one mans death is reason to chnage that now.

[Black Dog]

Given that the tradition of burying war dead in the country they fell has already gone out the window, what's another one?

Typical for sure. I doubt that neither Harper nor Martin were gung ho to put our soldiers in harms way to please Bush. Just maybe they are doing it for freedom, and as a woman we know what will happen to the women if the troops leave.

Pfff. Anyone who thinks we can change Afghanistan's long-held religious and cultural attitudes towards women by digging wells and building schools should give their head a shake.

Set amid news from the front, a debate about the placement of our flag may seem trivial. Yet it is a debate worth having, for it symbolizes the larger discussion taking place in Canada about our role in Afghanistan.

That debate may be defined thus: Are we at war against the Taliban, or are we at peace? If the former, then military casualties are an expected, if tragic, consequence of our deployment. If the latter, and our soldiers are to be seen as peacekeepers, not combatants, then every death should be regarded as an aberration and, therefore, an occasion for national anguish and soul-searching.

We believe the answer is clear: Canada, like the rest of the civilized world, is at war -- not only against the Taliban, but also against every other entity that seeks to pervert Islam into an excuse for senseless slaughter. It is also a war to bring stability and freedom to Afghan society. In this war, as in all wars, people will be killed. And sometimes, those people will be Canadian.

Was there a declaration of war that I missed? No? Then we are not at war. End of story.

[uOttawaMan]

Given that the tradition of burying war dead in the country they fell has already gone out the window, what's another one?

Typical for sure. I doubt that neither Harper nor Martin were gung ho to put our soldiers in harms way to please Bush. Just maybe they are doing it for freedom, and as a woman we know what will happen to the women if the troops leave.

Pfff. Anyone who thinks we can change Afghanistan's long-held religious and cultural attitudes towards women by digging wells and building schools should give their head a shake.

Set amid news from the front, a debate about the placement of our flag may seem trivial. Yet it is a debate worth having, for it symbolizes the larger discussion taking place in Canada about our role in Afghanistan.

That debate may be defined thus: Are we at war against the Taliban, or are we at peace? If the former, then military casualties are an expected, if tragic, consequence of our deployment. If the latter, and our soldiers are to be seen as peacekeepers, not combatants, then every death should be regarded as an aberration and, therefore, an occasion for national anguish and soul-searching.

We believe the answer is clear: Canada, like the rest of the civilized world, is at war -- not only against the Taliban, but also against every other entity that seeks to pervert Islam into an excuse for senseless slaughter. It is also a war to bring stability and freedom to Afghan society. In this war, as in all wars, people will be killed. And sometimes, those people will be Canadian.

Was there a declaration of war that I missed? No? Then we are not at war. End of story.

I'd say you have the blinders on big time if you think we aren't in a war in Afghanistan.

This isn't some cheery high horse UN mission we are on. We do not hold the moral high ground. This is a NATO operation. What NATO is doing in the middle east is questionable at best. It IS a war.

[Black Dog]

I'd say you have the blinders on big time if you think we aren't in a war in Afghanistan.

This isn't some cheery high horse UN mission we are on. We do not hold the moral high ground. This is a NATO operation. What NATO is doing in the middle east is questionable at best. It IS a war.

Okay: who are we at war with? Apparently, it's not the Afghan people. Is it the Taliban? If so, who are they and how do we know who's Taliban and who ain't? Afghanistan has along history of oppossing foreign occupation and no matter how cuddly the rhetoric about "freedom and democracy" gets, there's no escaping the possibility that plenty of Afghanis may have issues with white men in tanks without harbouring any sympathy for the Taliban. Or are we, as the Post has us believe, at war against a concept, a ideology?

And even if we accept that we are "at war", that raises the obvious yet thorny question of how we expect to win.

[Argus]

Apparently, family of one of the slain soldiers in Afghanistan is requesting that the flag be lowered. Jane Taber on Question Period criticised Kenny for not acquiescing to the request, saying "how hard is that to do?"

Tabor is a typical anti-conservative Toronto media "personality" - I won't call her a journalist, and if she weren't criticising them on this she'd criticise them on something else.

The flag on the peace tower was never lowered to half staff for ordinary soldiers except when four of them were accidentally killed by the US. At that point it was lowered more as a symbol of sullen anti-Americanism than as any sign of respect for the dead. No Liberal government ever had any respect for a soldier, and the pack of curs in office under Chretien and Martin certainly wasn't going to be the first.

[Argus]

The CPC constantly tell us that the Liberals were the first to send our soildiers to Afghanistan, but the original mission was to be Nato led. Since Harper took the realm, our soldiers are now led by the Americans INTO battle, rather than trying to keep the peace.

Nothing about the mission or the rules and agreements under which we are operating in Afghanistan has changed since the Liberals set it up.

[betsy]

Was there a declaration of war that I missed? No? Then we are not at war. End of story.

Well, the media must have been lying all along....including Dosanj and Graham...who had always maintained in no uncertain terms during discussions that our soldiers will be at war with Taliban insurgents.

Those blasted liars...I just knew it! They're in on it together in fooling the public! Telling us this is war when in fact it is not!

[geoffrey]

The CPC constantly tell us that the Liberals were the first to send our soildiers to Afghanistan, but the original mission was to be Nato led. Since Harper took the realm, our soldiers are now led by the Americans INTO battle, rather than trying to keep the peace.

Nothing about the mission or the rules and agreements under which we are operating in Afghanistan has changed since the Liberals set it up.

And the Americans are following us into battle currently. The American troops are under Canadian command in Kandahar, same with the French, Britons and the others.

[Black Dog]

Well, the media must have been lying all along....including Dosanj and Graham...who had always maintained in no uncertain terms during discussions that our soldiers will be at war with Taliban insurgents.

Those blasted liars...I just knew it! They're in on it together in fooling the public! Telling us this is war when in fact it is not!

If we are at war, we are at war only in a metaphorical sense and not in any legal sense.

And the Americans are following us into battle currently. The American troops are under Canadian command in Kandahar, same with the French, Britons and the others.

Heh heh. If you think the Canadians would piss if their pants were on fire without the Americans' say so, you're mighty naive.

[uOttawaMan]

Well, the media must have been lying all along....including Dosanj and Graham...who had always maintained in no uncertain terms during discussions that our soldiers will be at war with Taliban insurgents.

Those blasted liars...I just knew it! They're in on it together in fooling the public! Telling us this is war when in fact it is not!

If we are at war, we are at war only in a metaphorical sense and not in any legal sense.

And the Americans are following us into battle currently. The American troops are under Canadian command in Kandahar, same with the French, Britons and the others.

Heh heh. If you think the Canadians would piss if their pants were on fire without the Americans' say so, you're mighty naive.

Ha. It's been a long time since their has been any "legal" declarations of war, if you honestly believe there can be such a thing. In the modern world there are no more "convential wars". There will never be another orgainsed force to organised force war like WW2.

The fact is, war is an overused word anyway in modern society, so most people wouldn't know a real war if it hit them in the face.

[Black Dog]

The fact is, war is an overused word anyway in modern society, so most people wouldn't know a real war if it hit them in the face.

That's my point. Though I'll go even further: Afghanistan is not a war in the sense of being a force to force conflict, but neither is it a true counterinsurgency. There's not yet the kind or organization or sophistication in the "enemy" for this to be considered more than a glorifed policing operation, albeit one over a large, unstable area. If this was a war, we'd have Canadians coming home in bags every day.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Didn't the torys under Harper vote to lower the flag to half mast in 2002(I think). I'll search for an article on the subject. Having said that, this is arguing over semantics when we shouldn't even be there(Afghanistan)

There we go:

However, back in October 2004, after submariner Lieutenant Chris Saunders died in a fire on HMCS Chicoutimi, it was actually a Conservative MP -- James Moore -- who put forward a motion calling for flags on all government buildings to be flown at half-mast.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.