Canada parliament supports U.S. war resisters

[5 articles]

Canada parliament supports U.S. war resisters

http://www.workers.org/2008/us/war_resisters_0612/

By Dianne Mathiowetz & Jaimeson Champion
Published Jun 7, 2008

The Canadian Parliament voted favorably June 3 on a motion to halt
the deportations of U.S. conscientious objectors who are seeking a
safe haven in Canada rather than fight in the illegal occupation of
Iraq. The vote in the House of Commons was 137-110, with all the
opposition parties­the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the
Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party­ voting for the motion, and the
ruling Conservative Party voting against.

The motion is nonbinding and could be overruled by the Conservative
ruling party. Nevertheless, it is an important escalation of the
campaign against the deportation of GI resisters.

The motion to halt the deportations is a strong step against a series
of recent reactionary rulings issued by the Canadian Supreme Court.
The court's refusals to hear the appeals for refugee status filed by
numerous GI resisters have paved the way for the possible deportation
of dozens, if not hundreds, of conscientious objectors.

The vote in the Canadian Parliament comes on the heels of a
deportation order given to GI resister Corey Glass. Glass, an Indiana
resident, signed up for the National Guard in 2002. He was deployed
to Iraq in 2005 and served five months as a military intelligence
sergeant before going AWOL to protest what he deemed an "illegal and
immoral" war. Glass moved to Toronto, Canada, in August 2006.

In a recent interview, Glass said of his decision to join the
National Guard: "I signed up to defend people and do humanitarian
work filling sandbags if there was a hurricane. I should have been in
New Orleans, not Iraq." (Toronto Star, May 22).

On May 21, Glass was ordered to leave Canada by June 12 and return to
the U.S., where he will likely face imprisonment. In the wake of the
Glass ruling, and the run- up to the Canadian Parliament vote, GI
resisters and their supporters in Canada and the U.S. have been
intensifying the grass-roots struggle in support of more progressive
policies towards GI resisters seeking asylum in Canada.

Court martial at Ft. Gordon, Ga.

You can add another name to the growing list of U.S. military
personnel who are taking a stand against participating in the U.S.
occupation army.

Pfc. Ryan Jackson, now age 25, joined the Army in May 2005, hoping
that time in the military would offer a path to a college education
and a future career.

He went to South Korea as part of the 35th Signal Brigade. There he
began to question what purpose the U.S. military and foreign policy
really served.

By the fall of 2007, Jackson determined that he would not participate
in war and attempted to gain an administrative discharge. He went
AWOL in December 2007, contacted Courage to Resist and other GI
support groups, secured the services of a civilian lawyer, James M.
Branum, and turned himself in at Ft. Sill, Okla., on April 4, 2008.

On the eve of Jackson's court-martial, a dozen or so supporters from
Augusta and Atlanta, including members of the International Action
Center, demonstrated outside the gates of Ft. Gordon. Another young
soldier stopped by the vigil to express his solidarity and intent to
start a chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War at the base.

The following morning, May 29, several anti-war activists attended
Jackson's court-martial. He pled guilty to the charges but made an
eloquent statement declaring his actions a form of "civil
disobedience." He was sentenced to 100 days in confinement, reduction
of rank to E-1, forfeiture of pay and given a bad conduct discharge.

Since he is being credited with time served, Jackson will be out in
29 days. He plans on speaking at the Veterans for Peace conference
and going on a Courage to Resist tour later this summer.

A recent, nearly month long, anti-war march through upstate New York,
initiated by the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), and attended
by many GI resisters, was a marked success in helping to build
support for GI resistance. The march through working-class towns of
upstate New York­many of which are sparsely populated but have
numerous community members in the armed services­was a crucial step
in building broad-based solidarity with the brave men and women who
have taken a principled stand against the unjust wars of U.S. imperialism.

GI resisters are courageously leading the struggle against unjust
imperialist war. The movement in support of their brave actions must
continually strive to match their sacrifice. For more information,
see couragetoresist.org.

--------

[See URL for embedded links.]

Canada shouldn't deport military deserters from the Iraq war back to the U.S.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/304

06/06/2008
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Chad Rubel

In the last 70 years, Canada has helped out in a lot of wars
alongside the United States: World War II, Korean War, the first Gulf
War, and, of course, Afghanistan.

There are two wars missing from that list: Vietnam and the Iraq War.
And despite what Ann Coulter says, Canada wasn't in Vietnam. Canada
is willing to go to war, but if Canada doesn't enter a war, there are
probably some very bad reasons for going to war.

When some U.S. young men didn't want to go in the draft to Vietnam,
they went to Canada. And Canada welcomed them. The Liberal government
of Pierre Trudeau didn't have an issue with the protesters. According
to the War Resisters Support Campaign, between 50,000 and 80,000
Americans sought refuge in Canada during the U.S. war in Vietnam.

But quietly, there is a new revolution of U.S. young people who are
also selecting Canada. Of course, there is no draft, but these are
U.S. soldiers who decided they just couldn't do it anymore. And
unlike the Trudeau government, the Conservative government of current
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn't holding out the welcome mat.

In response, the Canadian House of Commons passed a non-binding
resolution by a 137-110 vote to "immediately implement a program to
allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members . .
. to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada."

The three other parties that have seats in Canada's Parliament: the
Liberals, New Democratic Party, and Bloc Quebecois, voted for the
resolution. The Conservatives, who have a minority government, voted
against the resolution. This is why the legislation is non-binding.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter established programs not just for war
resisters but for military absentees and AWOLs. This from the
American Friends Service Committee:

Similarly, military deserters and AWOL's could apply for a limited
pardon if there were no other charges pending. Under the Carter
program deserters would automatically receive a less than honorable
discharge ("Undesirable"), but could apply for an upgrade later. The
upgrade would not be automatic and few veterans received them. They
were barred from receiving veterans benefits, unlike many other vets
with less than honorable discharges. Military resisters had to apply
for relief within a certain time frame, about 5-6 months, during
1977. Only 4,200 of them were considered eligible for the program;
less than 25% of them were processed and received the
less-than-honorable discharge. The program allowed for a case-by-case
review of potentially another 430,000 cases of veterans with bad
discharges; yet only 16,277 benefited from this procedure.

Provided Barack Obama wins in November, he will have to decide what
to do about those soldiers who did leave for Canada.

Canada has established its role on the world stage as a moral center
in the 70 years where it has had that power. The first time Canada
was able to declare war was WWII, but before 1931, Canada didn't have
the power to declare war.

It took great moral courage to stand up for what was right and not
send troops to Vietnam. And in 2003, Liberal Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien showed that same courage and refused to allow Canadian
troops to fight in Iraq.

Prime Minister Harper has not shown moral courage, but more like
wanting to suck up to George W. Bush. And his response is to send
U.S. soldiers back to the United States, such as Corey Glass, a
25-year-old deserter who came to Canada two years ago and who faces
deportation by June 12.

It hasn't been just war deserters either: Ann Wright and Medea
Benjamin were banned from Canada for being convicted in the United
States of peaceful, non-violent protests against the war on Iraq.

It is not in the instinct for soldiers or potential soldiers to not
fight in a war, and it is not the instinct of countries to avoid war.
So when the instinct kicks in, we really need to pay attention and
respect those decisions. If we get progressive leadership in this
country, we can get the troops home and properly deal with the
military deserters. But we also need to nudge Canada, and
specifically the Conservative government, to reflect back on the
country's long-time status as a moral center in the world.

--------

In defence of war resisters

http://www.orilliapacket.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1062014

Rally to ask Ottawa to grant Americans refugee status

Posted By BY TEVIAH MORO, THE PACKET AND TIMES
6/6/08

Orillia's Quaker community is holding a rally Saturday to pressure
Ottawa to halt the deportation of American war resisters.

"They're called deserters, but the proper name is conscientious
objectors," said Allan Millard.

Parliament passed a nonbinding motion to let war resisters stay in
Canada, but the ex-soldiers haven't been granted refugee status,
Millard noted.

To pursue permanent status, they would have to leave Canada before
applying, putting themselves at risk of persecution in the United
States, he said.

"All that's really needed is a simple amendment to the rules,"
Millard said. "It's not going to open the floodgates."

Rallies are planned for other communities, including Ottawa, Sarnia,
Port Dover, Strathroy, Nelson, B. C., and Victoria, B. C. Port Dover
is the riding of federal Immigration Minister Diane Finley.

Organizers of the Orillia rally, to be held outside the Opera House
from 12:30 to 1:30 p. m., aim to explain the underlying issues of the
pending deportations and will have petitions on hand.

---------

Refusing Refuge

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/28/28098/1.html

by John Horvath
09.06.2008

Canada prepares to send army deserters back to the US

Despite the fact that at the beginning of this month Australia, one
of the United States' staunchest allies in the Middle East, decided
to finally pull out of Iraq, their support for the war continues,
albeit on a more low-key scale. While several hundred soldiers will
return home, many will stay further in a redefined role: as so-called
security guards and other such personnel.

What this demonstrates is that even though America's allies seemed to
have abandoned Iraq, they nevertheless are still helping out in one
way or another. Thus, governments like Australia are playing a
two-faced game: on the one hand they are appeasing public opinion
which has come to regard the war as wrong, and on the other they are
continuing to support the Huntington policy of a clash of
civilizations, better known as George W. Bush's War on Terror. This
entails not only continued and tacit support for the US in Iraq, but
includes an increased military presence in Afghanistan, an area where
the battle against the Taliban supposedly had long since been won.

Yet aside from direct support for the War on Terror in either Iraq or
Afghanistan, many countries are providing support for US foreign
policy in other ways. In Europe, for example, both France and Germany
have shifted silently to the right as demonstrated by the saber
rattling speeches against Iran by the likes of Sarkozy and Merkel
respectively.

Meanwhile, in Canada the government has undertaken measures to
prevent army deserters from entering the country and even returning
those who are already in back to the US, where they face stiff
penalties for their actions. Traditionally, Canada has served as a
safe haven for Americans who valued a duty to their conscience above
that of their commander-in-chief. During the Vietnam War, about
100,000 Americans sought refuge in Canada (it should be noted that
two-thirds of those who fought in Vietnam were volunteers). Of those,
approximately 30,000 ended up staying and living in Canada.

Some might argue that the difference between then and now is that
economic conditions are much tougher, and that Canada would be unable
to accommodate such an influx. Yet the present economic situation in
Canada isn't as bad as in the US. More importantly, there is a vast
difference in the numbers between then and now. Presently there are
about 200 American deserters in Canada and of these only about 50 or
so are asking for refugee status.

Still, as far as the Canadian government is concerned these people
aren't welcome, and attempts are now on the way to have them expelled
and sent back to the US. In fact, the first American soldier to be
deported back to the US is set to take place this week. Corey Glass,
who sought asylum in August 2006 after serving in the Iraq War, is
scheduled to be sent back on June 12.

Often when dealing with the issue of American military personnel who
have gone AWOL (absent without leave) the term "draft dodger" is used
interchangeably with that of "army deserter". This, in turn, ends up
confusing the issue somewhat. For example, during the Vietnam War
draft dodgers were those who were being drafted into the army; in
other words, they had no interest in joining the military whatsoever
but were forced to. Hence, thousands had fled to Canada because they
felt that they had no choice; they were being forced to participate
in a war that they didn't want to be part of. An army deserter, on
the other hand, is someone who had willingly joined the military.
Their reason for deserting was that either they were hoping that they
would not get sent to a place like Iraq but did, or had already been
to Iraq and didn't want to go again. Thus, in some ways they are more
responsible for their fate because unlike draft dodgers they were not
forced into the military; it's only after they got in that they
realized the mistake they had made.

Along these lines, not everyone is sympathetic to the plight of
American deserters in Canada. Those who are in favor of sending
American army deserters back point out that those individuals signed
a contract and that they should live up to their obligations or face
the consequences. Furthermore, they argue that when someone joins the
military they should assume that there is a reasonable chance that
they will actually be deployed to do the job they are being trained
and paid to do.

Moral argument and legal aspects

Those who favor returning deserters back to the US also feel that an
unnecessary amount of money and resources are spent on them when the
money is better served elsewhere. As one person in favor of the
deportations observed, "we fund our immigration program so that
people in real need can come into Canada and have access to medical,
financial benefits, and social freedoms. Not so that someone who
doesn't agree with what he signed off on can come in and waste our
tax dollars."

Although it's true that those from the American military seeking
refuge in Canada should have known what they were getting into when
they joined the military, some point out that many of these people
feel they have been tricked and lied to. In fact some, such as Glass,
had signed up for the National Guard feeling that they would be doing
humanitarian work and that they would only see military action if the
country was attacked by a foreign army (this is the ultimate meaning
of the term National Guard). Thus, many feel they had been duped, for
they expected to be bagging sand and saving lives during a hurricane
or flood and not in Iraq taking part in an illegal war.

Moreover, it's not only army deserters who feel that they have been
tricked but the general public as well. Only now have most Americans
come to the realization that their military is participating in a
dirty and an illegal war. Hence, those in support of the deserters
feel that it's incorrect and unfair to assume that those who refuse
to go to Iraq are all cowards who simply don't feel like doing the
job they signed up for. In fact, many of them actually went to Iraq
as they were supposed to do and served honorably for at least one
tour of duty; it was only after seeing the crimes against humanity
occurring there that they could not in good conscience continue.

Finally, those who desert are often charged with being unpatriotic;
yet to stand up against one's government when it is committing
atrocities can be considered to be both a patriotic and honorable
thing to do. As one supporter for the army deserters noted, "it is a
mark of their integrity that they served in the first place, and that
they came forward honestly about the problems at hand, despite
knowing the severe consequences they would face by doing so."

It is this aspect of returning these people to the US that most
concerns those who support American army deserters: the punishments
that await them if they are sent back. Army deserters face jail time,
dishonorable discharge, and are dropped to the lowest enlisted rank.
It also means a loss of benefits, little or no hope of good
employment, never being able to get a loan or a mortgage, and no
passport. In other words, it's a permanent scar on a person's life.

There are some who go beyond simply the moral argument and also look
into the legal aspects of Canada returning American army deserters.
Some claim that Canada's position violates the UN Charter on Refugees
which considers soldiers who refuse to take part in wars condemned by
the international community as refugees. Since the fighting in both
Iraq and Afghanistan isn't actually a "declared" war, it makes the
Canadian government's position that much more difficult to defend.

There is no doubt in the minds of most people that the Canadian
government's actions are nothing more than kowtowing to the US in
much the same way that many other countries, in their own way, are
still tacitly supporting the US in their military adventures.
Although opposition parties in Canada had passed a resolution in
parliament to allow American deserters stay, the minority government
of Stephen Harper is under no obligation to follow this resolution.

Thus, the future status of Glass and other American deserters living
in Canada is quite uncertain. It goes without saying that they won't
willingly return to the US of their own accord. Already the border is
becoming more difficult to cross, with American army deserters now
relying more on the "underground railroad" in order to get into
Canada. It remains to be seen, however, how keen the Canadian police
will be to pursue those who are already in the country and refuse to
return home.

---------

Deserter's deportation postponed until July

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/439667

Jun 09, 2008
Dan Robson
Staff Reporter

He was told to have his bags packed by this Thursday, but it appears
U.S. war resister Corey Glass will remain in Canada for at least
another month.

Initially ordered to leave the country by June 12, Glass's departure
date has been extended to July 10, after a month-long appeal process
by his lawyer was finally approved last week.

The former American soldier was set to become the first Iraq-war
resister to be deported from Canada, after his application for
refugee status was rejected more than two weeks ago.

Glass said his lawyer put forward the appeal so he would have
sufficient time to properly settle his accounts and allow him to
leave his job in a professional manner.

This week, all three opposition parties in the House of Commons
passed a motion urging the government to allow U.S. military
deserters and their families to remain in Canada as permanent
residents – instead of deporting them to face possible jail time. The
motion passed 137-110, but it is non-binding and the government can
choose to ignore it.

The motion that was passed in parliament had nothing to do with
Glass's extension.

New Democrat MP Olivia Chow (Trinity-Spadina), who brought the
conscientious objector's motion forward, says Glass's extended stay
is an opportunity for people to speak out, and ensure war resisters
like Glass are not sent to prison.

In the late '80s, the Canadian government was planning to deport
Vietnam draft dodgers and war resistors, Chow said.

"There was a huge outrage – it was phenomenal," she said.

That public outcry moved the government to reverse its decision, Chow
said, adding it's the kind of response needed to ensure sanctuary for
the estimated 100-plus American war resisters currently in Canada.

Through the counsel of his lawyer, Glass says he is planning to file
for a three-year temporary resident visa, which may buy enough time
for the outcome of the coming U.S. election to possibly change the
consequences he will face at home. When he returns to the U.S., Glass
will face jail time – a reality, he says, that will make his life a
permanent struggle.

"I probably won't be able to get a job. I'll have a felony charge – I
won't be able to vote," he said.

Glass said Wednesday's motion, and word that he'd been given an extra
month in Canada, boosted his optimism.

"I feel like things are maybe going to turn around for the best,"
Glass said. "People are working really hard on this. I hope they'll
be successful."

.