[Mot]

As it is a volunteer military in the United States, these individuals had a choice to join or not join the military in their own country. They opted to do so. Beyond that, they have a right to speak and express their opposition to this war in their own country. They have a right to organize politically in their own country in order to oppose this war. They have a right to dissent non-violently in their own country to oppose this war. As citizens, they have a responsibility to do so if they believe that this war is not legitimate. Trying to come to Canada will not do a thing to stop that war. In effect, they are abrogating their responsibilities by trying to do so, and, as a result, enabling its continuation.

STOP LOSS is a form of draft.

So you think they deserve to be punished for doing the right thing, I get it. I disagree with you.

 

[Hydrogen]

These people are citizens and have a responsibility to oppose the actions of their government. This is literally the purpose of democratic governance.

The political opposition that brought an end to the Vietnam war was not brought about by those who fled to Canada, but by those individuals who took it as their responsibility to oppose that conflict in their own country. They were the ones who made the difference. They did not opt out of all responsibility.

Stop loss is not a draft. No one is being forced to join the military. Nobody was forced to join the military. A person can refuse to accept their stop loss. They can dissent.

 

[Mot]

These people are citizens and have a responsibility to oppose the actions of their government. This is literally the purpose of democratic governance.

The political opposition that brought an end to the Vietnam war was not brought about by those who fled to Canada, but by those individuals who took it as their responsibility to oppose that conflict in their own country. They were the ones who made the difference. They did not opt out of all responsibility.

Stop loss is not a draft. No one is being forced to join the military. Nobody was forced to join the military. A person can refuse to accept their stop loss. They can dissent.

If you think I am not familiar with these tired conservative arguments, you are wrong.

The reason Vietnam ended was because there was an open draft that affected everyone except the draft dodgers like Cheney and Bush.

The STOP LOSS draft affects only the few. Stop Loss is forcing people who already served their duty into multiple tours. This war will not end because Americans have no connection to the war. The US media is not a free and open to opposition as one would expect. Dissent against the war was not, and to a degree of complete truth and disclosure, still not on the airwaves. Many people call those of us against ithe war treasonous and traitors. Just like you guys are doing to these soldiers. Nothing is new under the sun.

Once again I will bring up the point of the courts in the US. Bush has had 8 years to stack the civilian courts with Republican shills. These soldiers will never get a fair trail in the US. 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.

The things I have learned about Iraq from the resisters will never make it onto national media in the US. The Cons won't allow it, nobody spins the truth like the Cons can.

 

[Hydrogen]

If you think I am not familiar with these tired conservative arguments, you are wrong.

You may consider the argument tired, but your response reads as flaccid. Are citizens of a democratic country - individuals who made personal choices and who ought to have informed themselves - not responsible for their choices? Do they not have some responsibility in making themselves aware of the ramification of their choices? In a country governed by the people, are these individuals (all individuals of that country for that matter) not responsible for doing something if they reject the actions of their government? You appear to think not, and would rather suggest that another country - Canada - is somehow culpable for not rearranging its immigration laws to suit your own ends in serving the desires of those who reject their responsibilities.

As for the argument being conservative, how so? Your attempt to use the word conservative as epithet is really no better than the arch political conservatives who employ liberal as an epithet. There is no difference.

If being conservative means being responsible for one's own actions as an adult, then so be it. What is the alternative in your opinion? A dictatorship? The ultimate nanny state?

The US media is not a free and open to opposition as one would expect.

Funny, I've read and heard considerable criticism from the American media.

Bush has had 8 years to stack the civilian courts with Republican shills. These soldiers will never get a fair trail in the US.

Does fair only mean achieving the outcome you want?

The things I have learned about Iraq from the resisters will never make it onto national media in the US. The Cons won't allow it, nobody spins the truth like the Cons can.

Nothing is achieved through not trying.

The reason Vietnam ended was because there was an open draft that affected everyone except the draft dodgers like Cheney and Bush.

And there is no open draft in the United States presently, is their? Joining the military is voluntary, isn't it? You've argued that those individuals who fled did so because they never expected to end up in a war (at least the war of their choice). They joined to get benefits. They didn't really want the responsibility of being a soldier. In fact, they don't have to go, do they. They can reject their contract, but pay the price. Otherwise, nobody is forcing anyone to join up at gun point.

This nation historically has become home to people who refuse to take part in renagade militarism.

This applies to countries where there is no choice about fighting in a war. Either you fight or you die, or your family dies. That is very different from a volunteer military service where a person freely chooses to join or not join up. Comparing the two instances is very, very wrong.

 

[Mot]

Nice tactic skipping my most important point.

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.


Being conservative to me means being an asshole.

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

 

[Hydrogen]

Nice tactic skipping my most important point.

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.


Being conservative to me means being an asshole.

These individuals knowingly joined the military. They did so freely. They were not forced to do so. So your most important point was covered. If anyone joins the military without understanding that they are then exposed to military rules, then they are idiots. Becoming a soldier is serious business and not to be taken lightly by people who view it solely as a means to learning a trade.

By the way, who of these people have been executed?


As for the remarks about conservatives, it comes off as sad.

 

[Mot]

Hydrogen,
My comment might be sad to you, but then again liberals haven't done to you and your family what vicious self righteous conservatives did to mine.

Keith,
Your rhetoric isn't any more convincing to me than mine to you. Sometimes dude you just have win with grace. You won, people are needlessly suffering, time for you to celebrate!

BTW the slavery being legal point went right over your head.

 

[Hydrogen]

My comment might be sad to you, but then again liberals haven't done to you and your family what vicious self righteous conservatives did to mine.

Why would liberals have done anything to me? I believe that you assume me to be conservative - maybe even the type of conservative you hate - on the basis of my position on this issue. In assessing one's own political stance, a person can hold a position or positions which does not always satisfy some sort of presumed or expected beliefs held by another person. To me, a free and open society always has boundaries, and only when people value those boundaries will that society be safe.

As for what my family endured, about a third of them died at the time during the Second World War. In some instances, certain family members even found themselves on opposing sides. After the war, many came to Canada as refugees, and I grew up hearing about their experiences. That experience has made me wary about individuals who express invective about the political views or differences of others - regardless of what their politics is.

 

[kEiThZ]

Keith,
Your rhetoric isn't any more convincing to me than mine to you. Sometimes dude you just have win with grace. You won, people are needlessly suffering, time for you to celebrate!

BTW the slavery being legal point went right over your head.

Mot,

You have put forward an argument for compassion. And for that I respect you. As a serving person, I think a strong peace movement is important. I may disagree with some of their views....but they offer a valid counterpoint that ensure balanced debate in any democracy and ensure guys like me don't get deployed uselessly. My strongest criticism is reserved for those anti-military types who don't seem to have any clue about how the world works, and the value of having a well trained and equipped armed forces and the many uses it can be to.

WRT your argument about slavery. You're right, immoral laws, can't justify indecent behaviour. However, what I have argued here is that the principle does not apply here. Refugee laws are meant to protect those fearing for their lives, not those fearing a few years of prison for actions they committed voluntarily. I see nothing immoral about such laws. To broaden our refugee policy to include anyone who wished to desert his/her national armed forces (we can't make this a US only policy) would possibly lead to a backdoor migration policy. Don't forget, that numerous countries still have national obligatory service....under what you are proposing, they would qualify even before these US deserters. All this would result in a severe uptake of refugees which in turn would damage the current mix of immigration and burden Canada with migrants who are not necessarily economically viable and compatible. What you are proposing here would severely damage an already sound, fair and very moral immigration policy.

I have already said, these men should apply for residency under the normal process. There is nothing stopping them from doing that. And there are a number of groups who would likely sponsor the applications. But making the government go out of its way is an act that would right be construed as overt political interference in the US. After all, how would we Canadians feel, if the tables were turned?

Don't think for a second, I relish the misery that these folks are going through. However, I do think that the consequences of what you and they are demanding far outweigh the benefits to Canada as a whole. And as Canadians we have to look after ourselves first.

 

[Mot]

Why would liberals have done anything to me? I believe that you assume me to be conservative - maybe even the type of conservative you hate - on the basis of my position on this issue. In assessing one's own political stance, a person can hold a position or positions which does not always satisfy some sort of presumed or expected beliefs held by another person. To me, a free and open society always has boundaries, and only when people value those boundaries will that society be safe.

As for what my family endured, about a third of them died at the time during the Second World War. In some instances, certain family members even found themselves on opposing sides. After the war, many came to Canada as refugees, and I grew up hearing about their experiences. That experience has made me wary about individuals who express invective about the political views or differences of others - regardless of what their politics is.

You either like to spend your time being the devil's advocate or you are a conservative in many of your political postings. If it's the former then that is just plain sad and a waste of everyones time. The latter is an observation based on your arguments.

I don't hate anyone. I just think Conservatives are assholes. I am sure the feeling is mutual. If you weren't one you wouldn't take offence. I think they are assholes not just for what they personally did to my family (recently not to my ancestors), but also because of what they have done to my previous country. I don't want them doing the same things here. We cannot change the past but we can try to change the present and future.

The War Resisters treatment is just another example of a conservative government choosing to do the wrong thing. It might be legal, but it's still wrong and the weak thing to do.

 

[Brandon716]

Mot, you still haven't justified how these deserters would qualify for refuge under our laws.

What you are advocating for...is that Canada should make a specific exemption for US military deserters that would send a specific political message and setup an adversarial relationship with our best ally and biggest trading partner. This is not in Canada's best interest. Plain and simple. Our government is elected to look after Canada's interests, not those of US military deserters.

Forget refugee status, these people should be given work permits with relative ease and then they would automatically be eligible for permanent residency in due time.

 

[Mot]

Mot,

I have already said, these men should apply for residency under the normal process. There is nothing stopping them from doing that. And there are a number of groups who would likely sponsor the applications. But making the government go out of its way is an act that would right be construed as overt political interference in the US. After all, how would we Canadians feel, if the tables were turned?

Don't think for a second, I relish the misery that these folks are going through. However, I do think that the consequences of what you and they are demanding far outweigh the benefits to Canada as a whole. And as Canadians we have to look after ourselves first.

The resisters cannot legally immigrate to Canada now. They are banned from re-entering the country because they sought refugee status and lost.
The ones still here cannot apply from within the country until the courts are done with their cases. If they lose they are banned. It's a no win situation.

One of the things the movement has asked the government is to allow the sodliers to apply for permanent residency with work permits and wait in line just like other in country immigrants. We also promised to financially support them so it does not cost the government anything. The Tory's refused.

As human beings we need to look out for each other.

 

[Brandon716]

The resisters cannot legally immigrate to Canada now. They are banned from re-entering the country because they sought refugee status and lost.
The ones still here cannot apply from within the country until the courts are done with their cases. If they lose they are banned. It's a no win situation.

One of the things the movement has asked the government is to allow the sodliers to apply for permanent residency with work permits and wait in line just like other in country immigrants. We also promised to financially support them so it does not cost the government anything. The Tory's refused.

As human beings we need to look out for each other.

And that's the problem, they can't obtain work permits, permanent immigration, or refugee status as it stands today.

They should be given at least one legal avenue to stay in Canada, and anything else is immaterial. These people have made a claim in Canada and they want to stay in Canada. Why should they be denied?

They shouldn't be denied as long as they meet standard security requirements (like they don't have a criminal record of breaking and entering, rape, violent behaviors in general, or other real crimes).

 

[Hydrogen]

You either like to spend your time being the devil's advocate or you are a conservative in many of your political postings. If it's the former then that is just plain sad and a waste of everyones time. The latter is an observation based on your arguments.

I don't hate anyone. I just think Conservatives are assholes. I am sure the feeling is mutual. If you weren't one you wouldn't take offence. I think they are assholes not just for what they personally did to my family (recently not to my ancestors), but also because of what they have done to my previous country. I don't want them doing the same things here. We cannot change the past but we can try to change the present and future.

The War Resisters treatment is just another example of a conservative government choosing to do the wrong thing. It might be legal, but it's still wrong and the weak thing to do.

It's a bit presumptuous on your part in saying that I am wasting "everyones time." It might be a waste of your time, but you have responded nevertheless.

I've stated all along that war resistors have a right - even a responsibility - to resist a war that they believe has no rationale or moral basis. What I have objected to is their use of Canada as an escape clause to get them out of both their freely-acknowledged contractual military service and their responsibility as citizens of their country to bring change to the actions of their government. It's not me who is removing these people from Canada, but the laws.

As for your assessment of me being a "devil's advocate" or a conservative, it is indicative of your intolerance towards people who have a different point of view than yours. Calling all conservatives "assholes" without differentiating between individuals or their ideas is further evidence of this intolerance. People in Canada who hold conservative points of view ("them") are Canadians. And like it or not, they are here. This is their country, too. Collectively calling all of these individuals "assholes" based upon unstated experiences elsewhere is also quite unreasonable and again comes off sounding petty and intolerant. As with people who hold an outlook that can be broadly defined as "liberal," conservatives are a pretty varied bunch as well. It's the intolerant stripe that most concerns me; those who dislike or hate on the basis of labels, or casual beliefs, and nothing more. But that's not all people who can be defined as conservative. It's worth pointing out that the same problem exists for some of those who otherwise hold a liberal outlook as well. Prejudice and intolerance is not restricted to any one easily categorized group of people.

As for the reference to my family, I am not speaking to ancestors. Some of these people are alive today. My point (which you missed) was about intolerance. If you have been a victim of intolerance, and dislike intolerance, it's difficult to see why you would promote your own form by calling a whole grouping of people assholes, completely dismissing them, or attempting to use a label like "conservative" as an epithet.