Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Living in a (censored) democracy
Mr. Speaker,
The rights that Canadians enjoy with respect to access of information is unparalled in North America and throughout the world. This right is both a priceless strength to this country and a heavy burden. How does one weight the costs of allowing the freedom of the press against the risk of that same freedom becoming abused? Where do the privacy rights of the individual prevail over the collective rights of access to information?
Today, the Honourable Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence made a decision that severly limits the right of access to information by the Canadian public with regard to Canada's involvement in the international campaign against terrorism. How does the Prime Minister justify this decision? Earlier this week, he told the families of our fallen Canadian soldiers that he would no longer pay hommage to the supreme sacrifice that these individuals are called to make for their country by lowering the flag to half mast. Now he is telling us that we are going to burry them in silence.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: what is the value of one life? If it had been an elected official to die in Afghanistan, would the passing have gone equally unheeded? Do these soldiers, no matter how many die, not deserve the same consideration as any other public servant? Yes, they knew the risks. Yes, they face life and death situations on a continual basis. Yes, more will undoubtedly sacrifice their lives in the line of duty. But how will we choose to honour their sacrificies? By hiding their bodies behind closed doors, by not asking the questions that must be asked?: "Why are they being called to give their lives? Why must Canada be involved in this war against terrorism?" How can Canadians be expected to quietly look the other way as their comrades die without being told WHY?!
Mr. Speaker, this is not a time for silence but a time for dialogue. We have seen that the terrorists against whom we are fighting have no difficulties broadcasting their message of hate far and wide, and at the same time, we see their numbers swell. At the same time, we in Canada sit in silence about our role internationally, and our small number dwindles. Draw your own conclusions.
So Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence once again ... in fact, I plead with them on behalf of our soldiers who have no voice! Does our message of peace and order not merit being heard? On the contrary, should we not be screaming it from the tops of the highest mountains? How many more need die before this government wakes up to the fact that censoring will never bring about stability and peace in the region?!
The rights that Canadians enjoy with respect to access of information is unparalled in North America and throughout the world. This right is both a priceless strength to this country and a heavy burden. How does one weight the costs of allowing the freedom of the press against the risk of that same freedom becoming abused? Where do the privacy rights of the individual prevail over the collective rights of access to information?
Today, the Honourable Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence made a decision that severly limits the right of access to information by the Canadian public with regard to Canada's involvement in the international campaign against terrorism. How does the Prime Minister justify this decision? Earlier this week, he told the families of our fallen Canadian soldiers that he would no longer pay hommage to the supreme sacrifice that these individuals are called to make for their country by lowering the flag to half mast. Now he is telling us that we are going to burry them in silence.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: what is the value of one life? If it had been an elected official to die in Afghanistan, would the passing have gone equally unheeded? Do these soldiers, no matter how many die, not deserve the same consideration as any other public servant? Yes, they knew the risks. Yes, they face life and death situations on a continual basis. Yes, more will undoubtedly sacrifice their lives in the line of duty. But how will we choose to honour their sacrificies? By hiding their bodies behind closed doors, by not asking the questions that must be asked?: "Why are they being called to give their lives? Why must Canada be involved in this war against terrorism?" How can Canadians be expected to quietly look the other way as their comrades die without being told WHY?!
Mr. Speaker, this is not a time for silence but a time for dialogue. We have seen that the terrorists against whom we are fighting have no difficulties broadcasting their message of hate far and wide, and at the same time, we see their numbers swell. At the same time, we in Canada sit in silence about our role internationally, and our small number dwindles. Draw your own conclusions.
So Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence once again ... in fact, I plead with them on behalf of our soldiers who have no voice! Does our message of peace and order not merit being heard? On the contrary, should we not be screaming it from the tops of the highest mountains? How many more need die before this government wakes up to the fact that censoring will never bring about stability and peace in the region?!
Comments:
<< Home
Perhaps implying that the government is eliminating freedom of the press is a little bit much...
Consider:
Private funerals happen all the time.
Military bases are normally restricted to military personnel only, especially airport tarmacs like the one in Trenton that is the subject of the present controversy.
Photos of the ceremony were still published.
The moment of a soldier returning home is not actually a moment for the Government to publicize our international role (which you imply), but rather a moment to quietly respect the man or woman that died. This is best done by the people that knew the person, and not by media commentators mouthing platitudes.
For a soldier's perspective on this, please read:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060425.COFLAG25/TPStory?source=somnia
Best quotation on this flag flap:
"We wear the Canadian flag on the sleeve of our uniform, we salute it every day in theatre and if we are killed, it drapes our coffin. That is how the flag respects us. If the public wants to show its respect for us, give us the funding, the equipment, the training and the support to do the job you order us to do."
Post a Comment
Consider:
Private funerals happen all the time.
Military bases are normally restricted to military personnel only, especially airport tarmacs like the one in Trenton that is the subject of the present controversy.
Photos of the ceremony were still published.
The moment of a soldier returning home is not actually a moment for the Government to publicize our international role (which you imply), but rather a moment to quietly respect the man or woman that died. This is best done by the people that knew the person, and not by media commentators mouthing platitudes.
For a soldier's perspective on this, please read:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060425.COFLAG25/TPStory?source=somnia
Best quotation on this flag flap:
"We wear the Canadian flag on the sleeve of our uniform, we salute it every day in theatre and if we are killed, it drapes our coffin. That is how the flag respects us. If the public wants to show its respect for us, give us the funding, the equipment, the training and the support to do the job you order us to do."
<< Home
