Canada and US Deserters

By BJ

U.S. soldiers who fled to Canada to escape the war in Iraq won a symbolic victory in the House of Commons Tuesday when a majority of MPs voted that the deserters should be allowed to stay permanently in the country.

But the motion, put forward by the NDP, is non-binding on the minority Conservative government. Tory MPs voted against the motion but were outnumbered by the three opposition parties in a 137-110 vote.

. . .

Last fall, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeal of two men who had lost a bid for refugee status after the Federal Court of Appeal refused to declare the 2003 invasion of Iraq illegal.

Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey were among the first U.S. soldiers who crossed the border rather than face possible court martial and imprisonment for refusing to serve in a war which they said they morally oppose and is illegal because it was not sanctioned by the United Nations.

Jeffry House, the lawyer for the two Toronto men, has estimated that about 40 Americans have sought refugee status to avoid the Iraq war. Another 150 or so are in Canada but they have not filed refugee claims.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the two men did not deserve refugee status in Canada because they come from a democratic country with an accountable and just system for dealing with deserters.

As noted, this is mostly a symbolic victory as the motion in non-binding, and given the governing Tories all stood against it, there's a pretty good chance they'll ignore it. And as much as I sympathize with the soldiers in question, I would have probably voted against such a motion myself. I obviously agree with them and cheer their refusal to fight in Iraq, but deserting and fleeing to Canada isn't taking a stand. However heavy-handed the recruitment tactics used, these people volunteered to serve in the military. And facing prison and discharge for refusing deployment orders does not make someone a refugee. This just makes it that much easier for the war's supporters to paint them as a bunch of cowards rather than people making a choice based on their conscience.

If you want to see an example of someone refusing deployment to the illegal war in Iraq in a way that makes its nature clear as a stand based on a conscious decision to refuse illegal orders, I would point to the case of Lieutenant Watada. Whatever the ultimate outcome of his case, it makes a far greater point about the legality of the war and the orders supporting it than the guys who slipped across the border.

Now, if the US re-institutes the draft, or starts shooting people for refusing deployment, then we're in different territory. Come on up! You can fight the dog for the couch and I'll help pay for the immigration lawyer.