Government’s Case Against Resisters Faulty

The Harper government attempts to justify deporting U.S. Iraq War resisters with a familiar, but untrue, narrative.

They say that unlike during the Vietnam War, U.S. soldiers are volunteers and are not considered refugees by the United Nations. They say refugee applications are evaluated fairly on their own merits, and there is no need to create a separate program for U.S. Iraq War resisters.

All these statements are false.

First, not all Vietnam War resisters were conscripts, and many Iraq War resisters are redeployed against their will. Vietnam War resisters included draft dodgers who fled before induction, those who accepted their draft notice and were inducted, and those who voluntarily joined the military services. After a brief political struggle in 1969 concerning those who came to Canada after induction, Canada welcomed both groups without distinction.

Although current war resisters volunteered and some completed their service, many found themselves involuntarily redeployed to Iraq. Programs of stop-loss and individual ready-reserve recall soldiers after they have been discharged. Many soldiers, such as Jeremy Hinzman, have had their applications for conscientious objector status denied.

Section 167 of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees’ Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status states that “a deserter or draft-evader may also be considered a refugee if it can be shown that he would suffer disproportionately severe punishment for the military offence on account of . . . political opinion.”

After being deported, war resister Robin Long was sentenced to 15 months in prison, the harshest punishment so far for resisting the Iraq war, partly because of his political statements about the war. Multiple Federal Court of Canada decisions have granted stays of removal on the grounds that U.S. war resisters who have spoken out against the war would suffer differential punishment.

Section 171 of the UNHCR Handbook states that “where the type of military action, with whom an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft-evasion could . . . in itself be regarded as persecution.”

This is precisely the position in which Iraq War resisters find themselves, refusing – as did Canada under Prime Minister Jean Chretien – to participate in a war condemned by the international community.

Second, while war resisters who have applied for refugee status may be treated the same as every other applicant, the government’s blanket opposition to war resisters as revealed in public comments by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney – who labeled them “bogus refugee claimants” – led the Canadian Council for Refugees to rebuke the minister because such a statement gives “the strong appearance of political interference” and “threatens claimants’ right to an unbiased decision.”

And to date, where U.S. war resisters have attempted to access the humanitarian and compassionate grounds application process, instead of their claims being decided fairly, the majority of these individuals have received negative decisions that are almost identical, word for word.

The final argument of the government is that they do not believe in creating a program to allow war resisters to apply for permanent residence. But the majority of Canadians do, and Parliament passed a motion to that effect last June, and again on Monday. Rather than listen to Parliament, the government has been deporting war resisters to punishment in the U.S., justifying government actions with a series of false arguments.

It is time for the Conservatives to stop making false claims and to start respecting the will of Parliament. Iraq War resisters should be allowed to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada.

POSTED BY: Paul Copeland is a co-founder of the Law Union of Ontario, a previous co-president of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted and Life Bencher (director) of the Law Society of Upper Canada., London
POSTED ON: April 1, 2009

EDITORS NOTE: As published in The London Free Press on April 1, 2009, reproduced here with the author’s permission

About the Author

Law is Cool
This site is intended to provide a resource for those interested in law. Current law students, graduates preparing for their bar exam, and members of the general public, can all benefit from a deeper understanding of the legal framework that helps shape our society.

10 Comments on "Government’s Case Against Resisters Faulty"

  1. Hello, I am an Englishman, blue eyes, English genes. Canada is an English country, founded by the English, part of the Commonwealth, our head of state Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

    All of which to say: *I* will tell *you* how *you* will speak *my* language, English, in *my* English country, Canada, and you will henceforth use the word “deserter” in lieu of the weasel word you are currently misusing, “resister”, is that clear?

    These people volunteered for military service, they often received financial and education assistance, and they deserted. They are deserters, not resisters. They want all the benefits of being a soldier and none of the responsibilities, hardly unusual for young people these days.

  2. Another serious problem with the case against the war resisters is the disconnect between the situation they are escaping and the situations we regularly exclude refugee claimant for. The argument for not granting refugee status is that the war and their orders do not constitute international crimes. However, we often exclude people for having committed international crimes who were in similar situations. Basically, you can’t win for losing.

  3. Sarah, (if you don’t already know) you may be interested to know that Canada actually excludes people for assisting its military allies on occasion, because in so assisting, those people have fallen foul of IRPA s.34. The general rule appears to be “exclude everyone possible under the IRPA, with the exception of those persons who it would be politically embarrassing to the present government to exclude.” So, nobodies you’ve never heard of who assist the USA in its various adventures are excluded from Canada, but US soldiers are not (because doing so would be recognition that those soldiers were also “engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government”).

  4. Corrector, as someone who has a linguistics degree with high distinction, and who has studied with some of the top linguists in North America, I feel compelled to state that your comment is completely moronic. It has been systematically proven time and time again that your approach to language is nothing but the efforts of a small-minded elite using language to maintain control over a lesser social caste.

    Furthermore, since the soldiers are resisting pressure to commit acts which they consider morally wrong (and which might one day be shown to be against international law), then the term “resistor” is quite applicable. If their allegiance is to established international law, which supersedes national law, then they are not “deserting” their obligation at all – quite the contrary. If you don’t believe me, check the OED. If you don’t know what that is, then you’re not really the super-Englishman you’ve claimed to be.

  5. James Halifax | April 15, 2009 at 12:16 pm |

    As someone who does NOT have a “Linguistics” Degree (I prefer to have a job and earn a living) I would have to say I don’t give a rats-behind about “resisters” “deserters” or cowards who signed up for the benefits of military service, but refused to actually provide military service.

    Whether Canada allows any of these Americans to stay or not, is not the real issue for someone who is truly in love with the meaning of words, (whether an unemployable linguist, or hooliganism prone Englishman) instead, the focus should be on the word “refugee.”

    There is no such thing as a refugee from the United States. A gay man from Iran trying to escape to Canada….that would qualify. Any woman from any Muslim state that wants to escape to Canada for the sake of her daughters…..that would be a refugee.

    A citizen from the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world that practically invented individual freedoms, opportunity, and the pursuit of happiness….sorry. That doesn’t cut it.

    If these soldiers/former soldiers have had enough fighting in any war their country signed up for….and want to break their oath to do as ordered, then let them pay the price for it. They volunteered to be a US soldier, and given the penchant of the US to use their soldiers as they were intended…..one would surmise they knew what they were getting into. They played the odds and lost….and now they are complaining. Sorry…no sympathy here.

    Everyone who deserts….leaves that much more heavy lifting for those who do their duty. Claiming to be a “resister” is just the palatable way of saying “I’m a chicken_Zhit who’s breaking my word.”

    If claiming some moral high ground entitles one to break the law of the land with impunity, then I want to become a “TAX RESISTER.”

    I don’t want tax-dollars spent on lazy Union workers’ pensions in Ontario, especially since the members themselves have never contributed.
    I don’t want my money going to fund abortions for women who see it as a form of birth control.
    I don’t want my money going to Africa to keep dictators in office simply because they are “our dictators”

    Ok…I’m a resister now. Where are my accolades? Who’s going to defend my right to resist what I see as unfair or foolish?

    The difference between the “War Resisters” and me? They volunteered for war…..I was a tax-conscript.

  6. James, while I am profoundly humbled in deference to your working-man credentials, your little diatribe does not detract from the convincing legal statement of Mr. Copeland, who, unlike you, cites examples and precedents.

  7. James Halifax | April 22, 2009 at 1:14 pm |

    Ryan:

    Actually, my credentials as a working man preceeded my designation as an accountant and finance guru. I can build a house, fix a car, and do your taxes…. ( I have even dabbled in the Law)

    As for Mr. Copeland’s examples and precedents, one would only concur if their own grasp of logic and fact were as faulty as the aforementioned Mr. Copelands own.

    If every linguist in the world were to disappear tomorrow, no one would notice. If, however, we lost those who actually had marketable skills such as carpentry and plumbing, we would all suffer.

    Listing credentials prior to making an argument is NOT the way to prove you are correct. A better idea…….would be to come up with a better argument.

  8. I am somewhat conflicted on this topic. I firmly believe that the Iraq war was a stupid immoral war (I’ll leave aside the illegality as my respect for the entire notion of ‘international law’ wanes daily) and understand why someone would have moral objections to participating. If they were drafted I said say “heck ya let them stay”.

    But on the other hand we’re not talking about draft dodgers here. We’re talking about people who voluntarily enlisted in the armed forces. After the Vietnam War it is pretty hard to argue that another immoral, blatantly imperialist war wasnt forseeable so I have very limited sympathy for these “resisters” or “deserters” or whatever you want to call them. Its also important that deserters would receive due process and are typically not executed, tortured, or sentenced to life in prison (or anything approaching that).

    Tough call.

  9. James,
    My hyperbolic listing of educational background was intended to be a sarcastic counterpoint to Corrector’s claim to linguistic authority based on his “Englishman, blue eyes, English genes.” Hope that clears it up.

  10. James Halifax | April 24, 2009 at 3:17 pm |

    Actually Ryan, if you wanted to see what REAL sarcasm looks like, you should have seen my inital post. The Admin however, did not let it through. I provided the santized version.

    Nuff said on my end.

Comments are closed.