Liberals To Fight For "War Resisters"

Photo credit: Kerfuffles and Flourishes

Before I get the context of the headline, I just want to thank everyone who privately emailed me and particularly those who have contributed to my legal defence based on the libel suit brought against me. I am speechless as to how warmly you have come to my aid.

I’m cleaning out some of the links I’ve bookmarked in the past few days that I’ve wanted to write about, but haven’t had time. My brother is visiting from Ontario, where I just returned from to attend his wedding. This one is a few days old, but still interesting.

It’s a little strange to stumble on an American article about a Canadian news item, particularly one that got as little press as this one did. As far as I can tell, this was just a Canadian Press wire release that has been syndicated, but few have offered up any comment on it.

The Liberal Party’s Gerard Kennedy has introduced a bill that would allow American deserters from Iraq, and other “war resisters” from other countries, to stay in Canada. The illegal aliens would be granted amnesty if their refusal to serve is based on “sincere moral, political or religious objections.” Canada’s Parliament already voted twice to support these war resisters, but the motions were non-binding. Mr.Kennedy’s bill goes a step further because it aims to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I’ve already written at length about my objections for granting amnesty to war resisters in Canada. This isn’t just based on toeing the conservative government line either; prominent political figures and writes from the entire spectrum have said that it’s a mistake to grant amnesty. John Moore, radio host for CFRB in Toronto, once held a call-in show on the topic in which he espoused the belief that the volunteer corps refusing service in Iraq were in breach of contract, and that nothing was being accomplished by “running away”.

Running away appears to be the more accurate description for what’s actually happening here, as Matt Gurney explained in the National Post in June. The practical costs of accepting American war resisters are numerous. One is obvious: the strain on relations with our strongest ally, who can take subtle steps to make us aware of their disapproval. But even more important is the consideration that the technical legality of war resisters in Canada should be left to a legal body, and not a populist parliamentary ideal:

Upon return to the United States, soldiers absent without leave face trial by courts-martial, and, if convicted, would likely be handed bad-conduct discharges and prison sentences of approximately one year. (Supporters of the resistors’ right to remain point out that the more public noise a resistor makes, the longer his or her sentence.) While bad-conduct discharges and possible prison time are certainly unpleasant, it is hardly torture or risk of execution. Canadian courts must decide whether or not that constitutes sufficient reason to permit the resistors to remain.

The wording of the bill is also worrisome, since it leaves it open to subjectivity and much ambiguity. After all, how is one to determine if someone has a “sincere” moral objection to a conflict. Are some conflicts moral and others immoral? If so, why did such a person sign up for military service, knowing that they could not choose the morality of the conflicts they would be serving in? Political or religious objections? Are soldiers now given the opportunity to be polled when they are called to service, so that they may enter into record what specific objections they have to their country’s participation in a current conflict?

It’s also a little dangerous to consider that many soldiers who sign up for the Army in the U.S. receive lucrative signing bonuses, necessary to attract recruits without the need for mandatory military service, who could then take the signing bonus and cross the border with their new life and cash to start it. We would be final arbiters in deciding that breach of contract is okay if all it means is that one must say they object on moral, political, or religious grounds.

Just as one could make a valid argument that opposing all war resisters without hearing their specific claims is prejudicial to the process, drafting a law in the Immigration Act that accept all war resisters without hearing their specific claims extends itself to the same flaw in reason.