Was Nathan Cirillo A Hero? - Part 2

Yesterday's post revolved around a column by The Hamilton Spectator's Andrew Dreschel in which he questioned whether the circumstances of Nathan Cirollo's death qualified him as a hero. I predicted that he would likely be subject to a barrage of criticism, given that the young man's death was so recent, and a state funeral had essentially been accorded him.

Today's piece by editor-in-chief Paul Berton confirmed this. While some comments were supportive, others were not so complimentary:

An online petition urged The Spectator to have Dreschel fired. Others wanted us to remove the column, which was apparently "going viral" on social media, from thespec.com.

Another said,

"How can you print one day that he's a hero and the next day that he is not?"

I was glad, however, to see that Berton is standing his ground:

I acknowledge the timing of the column may have been premature and insensitive, and I take full responsibility for that. But a newspaper should not refuse to print opinions simply because they may offend.

As devastated — and as proud — as so many of us were in Hamilton this week, does wondering what it all means in the modern scheme of things take away from that?

He goes on to say:

But isn't that the nature of any good newspaper — to reflect all opinions, no matter how popular or unpopular?

Isn't that the nature of a democratic community? To make sure we can learn from all events?

The funeral brought this community together — and enlightened us. Might not a frank conversation do the same?

I wonder if the irony is lost on all those thousands who lauded Cirillo for his protection of our freedoms who now seem, through their intolerance, to value it so little?

Was Nathan Cirillo A Hero?

As I noted on this blog previously, it is always a tragedy when a young person loses his or her life, whether to accident, disease, or mayhem. The lost potential is incalculable. Like me, however, I suspect many found the mythologizing of Nathan Cirillo's murder, his passage on the Highway of Heroes, and what amounted to a state funeral, attended by an array of dignitaries, including the Prime Minister, a little much. And as a cynical observer of the political landscape, I cannot escape the notion that all of the ceremony will prove to be of great benefit to the Harper regime's propaganda machine and its ongoing efforts to reduce our civil liberties.

This morning, a friend of mine alerted me to a piece by the Hamilton Spectator's Andrew Dreschel. It is a frank and honest assessment of this past week's spectacle. It is also brave, as I suspect it will earn him a barrage of hate mail.

While in no way detracting from the loss of this young man, Dreschel offers an unsentimental assessment of what happened:

The 24-year-old Hamilton reservist was murdered in cold blood by a homeless crack addict with terrorist notions while he was ceremonially guarding the National War Memorial in Ottawa.

Cirillo's death was tragic and senseless, but in no way was it heroic.

Dreschel then goes on to talk about what constitutes heroism: those who display remarkable courage,

by performing brave deeds and daring feats — risking or sacrificing your life to save others, valiantly defending a position, boldly destroying the enemy.

But Cirillo never got the chance to show the stuff of which he was made:

He died unprepared and unarmed, the unlucky victim of a seemingly deranged killer who was himself gunned down after storming Parliament.

All of the subsequent coverage gave this tragedy a life of its own, culminating in what the writer describes as secular canonization.

Dreschel ends on this note:

Through no action of his own, the accidental victim had become an accidental hero. But sadly, like all accident victims, he just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Unsentimental and accurate, the column raises some disturbing issues that we should all be honest enough and brave enough to confront. Of course, it is right to feel grief and empathy in tragic situations; obviously it is part of what makes us human. But we should also be keenly aware that those very human responses can work to our detriment if they are not leavened by the knowledge that those in positions of trust with far darker motives may try to exploit them to their own advantage.

Political Partisanship Masquerading As Political Analysis

With the Ontario provincial election pending, more and more opinion pieces will find their way into both national and local papers. I certainly welcome a broad range of views to read and react to. However, it strikes me as the epitome of dishonesty for a columnist to pretend he or she is writing a political analysis when in fact the purpose is to advocate for a specific party or candidate.

Such is the case with Andrew Dreschel's column in today's Hamilton Spectator. Entitled Ontario could face coalition government, the article, by invoking the prospect of a coalition, transparently attempts to invoke the same kind of reactionary fear that Stephen Harper so effectively exploited on his road to a majority government. While I encourage everyone to read the piece, here are a couple of snippets that illustrate Dreschel's larger purpose:

Hudak might end up leading a minority government.

If so, the idea of an alternative governing coalition or at least an alliance between the Liberals and New Democrats may very well be in the cards.

He then goes on to remind the reader of the alliance that took place between Liberal David Petersen and then NDP leader Bob Rae that ultimately led to the disastrous Ontario NDP government, suggesting that Dalton McGuinty and Andrea Horvath could find sufficient common ground to partner:

As with Peterson, McGuinty’s generally seen as progressive — if you take the word to mean left of centre.

The sowing of fear has begun.

Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.