I've covered your questions many times over and over in this thread. Beating a dead horse is getting old.
No. You want to convince us with rhetoric not answers. You have still failed to show:
1) How these deserters would qualify under the laws of Canada for refuge
2) Why the moral imperative to protect them outweighs the economic, political and legal consequences of bringing a major irritant into our relationship with our biggest ally and trading partner
3) Why the government of Canada should interfere in a neighbouring democracy, actively undermine its policies and laws, and prevent it from enforcing its laws against one of its own citizens.
Slavery was legal, it didn't make it right.
Last I checked, people didn't volunteer to be slaves. US deserters volunteered to serve in the US armed forces and recieve numerous benefits which are not available to ordinary citizens. I still haven't heard of any of them offering to pay back all their pay and benefits so they can go back to status quo ante. They want discharges without any consequences for their actions. That's not right.
Every refugee is actually breaking the laws of Canada by entering our borders until they are given refugee status by the goverment.
No, they are not breaking our laws by staying here while waiting for their claims to be processed. In fact, as soon as they submit an intent to file a claim , they are usually released from custody. US citizens are allowed to stay in Canada. They just can't work, etc. They are breaking our laws when their claims for refuge have been refused and they do not follow orders to leave the country.
Perhaps you can start a Minuteman group like the one on the Mexican border.
I have no problems with immigration. I am one myself. It is vital for our country and our economy. I have said repeatedly, these deserters are more than welcome to apply for Permanent Residency. They should not however, be bumping real refugees, and agitating for special treatment when they don't qualify under our laws.
If the liberals were the minority government they would be here dedicated, legally and happy to support Canada.
Shouting from the opposition benches and governing are two different things. I have already pointed out that if Martin had a majority we would be in Iraq right now. Do you really think, they would have accepted deserters if we were part of the coalition?
That is exactly why a Canadian citizen languishes in a US prison without a fair trail.
I have already said that I disagree with the treatment of Omar Khadr and I have written letters, etc to argue my case. But do not try to equate the issue. At the end of the day, Omar Khadr is there because he participated in an organization that was illegal and possibly attacked the forces of an allied country. Given our participation in Afghanistan, he could have just as easily killed a Canadian. That being said, he should be repatriated and tried and convicted in Canada. Personally, I also consider his parents culpable and think his mother should be tried for child abuse and treason.....
I can explain the US using terrible draft'like tactics like Stop Loss until I am blue in the face and you just aren't listening. A draft by any other name (Stop Loss) is still a draft.
Nice tactic skipping my most important point.
We are not buying that stop loss is a draft. When you join the military (even here in Canada) you are specifically told that you serve at the pleasure of the government (the Crown in our case) and that you can be recalled into service if needed even if you have been out for a decade. It was made very explicit to me that once I sign that piece of paper I will be an air force officer for the remainder of my life whether I am in uniform or a long haired heavy metal bass player. Indeed, my commissioning scroll has no expiry date on it.
I have no doubt that this was discussed with these individuals when they joined even if they will now deny it. And I have no doubt that this was on their contract. If it wasn't then they certainly have a case and should present their contracts before the courts and seek a discharge from the military in the US. Or more than likely if the clause wasn't in their contracts, they might have a case in the Canadian courts saying that they were compelled into service. But if the clause is there in their contract, then the Canadian government would be extremely immoral in helping a foreign citizen break a contract he signed with his government (and by extension his people).
Beyond that the military has it's own separate court system. So the same military that these soldiers are fighting against are the judge, jury and executioners of their trials.
Yes and there are good historical reasons behind that. Pretty hard to halt a war just to hold trials. That being said, the system is a very fair one that rules according to the law. Apparently, what you don't like is this. Now if you don't like the law, that's an altogether different issue. And like has been mentioned here many many times before, that's what democracy is for. Go back to the States, protest, have sit-ins, campaign for anti-war candidates...what exactly is going to be accomplished by demanding involvement of a foreign government?
Being conservative to me means being an asshole.
First off, name calling will get you nowhere. Second, to most of us this is not a right/left issue. It is a matter of principle, that we expect all who come here to follow our laws. And we expect refuge to be reserved for people who fear for their lives. Otherwise, anyone from any country who disliked their government could hop on a plane to Canada and seek refugee status. And we expect our government to apply those laws evenly, regardless of whether those seeking refuge are US military deserters or Chinese political dissidents.
What's pathetic is your obvious fear of the US. I have answered the challenges over a few months here. You just don't like my arguments.
Polls show I am in the majority, you aren't on this issue.
I just disagree with your arguments. I don't fear the US. But I am realistic. There will be economic or political repercussions for accepting deserters. There could be legal repercussions,ie.loss of reciprocity (when we want a Canadian extradited. etc).
They are our largest trading partner. That may not matter to you, but it does to many Canadians. And as I have already stated, if they included this point in the poll question, the answer would have been very very different. IT's easy to say "let them stay" when there are no consequences. What if the US decides to play hardball on Arctic sovereignty, border integration, exports, etc. because they feel that we are undermining their policies. Should we oppose or disagree with US policies. Of course we should. But there is a time and a place to express that opposition. We can vote against them at the UN. We can agree not to join the mission (we did). We can withdraw our military exchange personnel (we didnt). Accepting deserters would rightly be perceived by the US government as an attempt by Canada to actively undermine its foreign policy and attack the cohesiveness and morale of its military.
Sympathy? You have a funny way of showing it. Perhaps if you tried empathy you might get it. These men and women came here because they thought they had a valid argument like others whose goverments turned on them. They seek to not be punished for refusing to kill innocent civilians You and the Tory Government have proven to us that Canada isn't the place for them to go. You win, does it make you feel good?
As a serving member, I am better placed than you to understand the dilemma they must have gone through. I disagree with their actions, but I have sympathy for them and their situation. I think they should have requested transfers to another theatre (Afgahnistan) or to non combat duty. Does it make me feel good, that they are being deported to face prison in the US? Of course not. However, I still believe at the end of the day, that they are not as important as the laws (a good and strong refugee policy) and interests of Canada. I would have felt differently if they were facing a death penalty or life in prison, then perhaps the moral obligation to protect them would outweigh the economic, political and legal consequences facing Canada from letting them stay here. But this is not the case.
As a Canadian citizen, I expect the government of Canada to protect my interests and my well being. If Jeremy Hinzman et al. might affect the livelihoods of BC loggers or Quebec aerospace workers, then he should be deported. Simple as that. That may sound callous, but the world is a harsh place, and the government of Canada can't look out for the world, just Canadians. It's those loggers who pay taxes, after all, not US deserters.