The right to resist the Iraq war
There is much more at stake as we go to the polls on October 14
courtesy of resisters.ca
Tuesday, October 7th, 2008
The 2008 federal election in Canada is significant, though you might not know it from the lack of issues being debated. What’s at stake? I would argue a substantial patch of the fabric that has become “Canada” is in danger of being irreparably ripped away.
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government have made many tears in that, but the one that exemplifies the worst damage is the deportation of US Iraq war resister Robin Long. The resisters’ ongoing struggle and Long’s deportation expose several aspects of the Conservatives’ contempt for Canada.
As a nation, Canada has a very long tradition of offering refuge to people facing injustice and persecution, particularly political persecution. During the Revolutionary War in the US colonies, Canada welcomed the United Empire Loyalists. We welcomed those fleeing slavery in the US. More recently and in substantial numbers, Canada welcomed deserters and draft dodgers from the US war on Vietnam. We have done this because we believe in the value of human rights and the freedom of political expression. The Conservative government doesn’t believe that Canada should be a refuge from political persecution or aggressive militarism.
Canadians strongly identify with Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s legacy of multilateral engagement with the rest of the world. That legacy supports, develops and enforces international law. The world has collectively agreed on some fundamental principles of military behaviour over time including the Geneva Conventions and the judgement and Charter of Nuremberg following the Second World War. These are the tools that protect us all from unchecked military aggression. The Conservative government refuses to allow soldiers to exercise their rights under international law.
Despite challenges and tensions, Canada maintains the system of government that it’s had for 141 years. Two out of the three branches of the Canadian government are now showing support for the case of US war resisters. On June 3 of this year a majority of the House of Commons voted to call for an end to deportation proceedings against war resisters, and for war resisters to be allowed to apply for permanent resident status in Canada. This vote is backed up by consistent polls, which show that more than 60 per cent of Canadians support the war resisters. The Canadian Judiciary will now hear appeals of deportation orders against war resisters and in one case has required the Immigration and Refugee Board to rehear a case from the beginning.
The third branch of government is the executive branch—the minority government of Stephen Harper. When Stephen Harper was leader of the official opposition, he stated that “The prime minister has the moral responsibility to respect the will of the House.” Rather than be that morally responsible prime minister he spoke about, Stephen Harper has consistently opposed the war resisters and completely ignored the results of the vote in the House of Commons. He has not “respected the will of the House.” He has continued to oppose and act against the war resisters.
Shutting out the Conservative Party on election day will do more than support US war resisters, it will preserve the Canada that supports human rights, political freedom, international law and parliamentary democracy.
Stewart Trickett Oct 7
Robin Long is not a resister, but a convicted deserter. There is no conscription in the U.S. – he joined the armed forces of his own free will. In other words, Long made a commitment and he broke it.
By not stating these pertinent facts, Bjorknas seems more interested in politicizing than informing.
Reply
eve Oct 7
should this matter? so Long joined and then changed his mind- should this act be criminalized?
Reply
Miley Cyrus Oct 7
Wow! I think this is quite interesting.
Reply
Fred Oct 7
Isn’t that commitment based on an agreement that the government won’t go to war lightly? Or ill prepared? Or based on scant, apparently false, evidence? Or in violation of international law?
We’re not arguing about the terms of an extended warranty here—when soldiers go to war they could easily end up dead. And then what? We honour your memory by completely disregarding the seriousness of the agreement?
But you end by arguing that the her argument is moot because she calls Long a resister and not a deserter—you’ve fucked up your terms. You’re thinking of draft dodgers. “Resisters” can be contentious objectors, which, yes, Canada does have a history of supporting. All this discussion seems to be proving is that you’re attacking her argument with false terms that wouldn’t even have much to do with anything if they were true. Gold star for not putting any effort into it though.
Reply
Stewart Trickett Oct 8
Fred:
It is well understood that when you join the armed forces you don’t get to pick and choose your wars. There is no understanding, implicit or explicit, that a soldier only has to fight in wars that he or she approves of.
The point, though, is moot. The military campaign in Iraq began in March 20, 2003. Long enlisted in June 2003. In other words, Long enlisted after the war began, and had to know that there was an excellent chance that he would be sent there.
Which contributes even further to my main point, which is why was Bjorknas so parsimonious with the facts in her article? Apparently she only wants you to know those things that support her argument.
Reply
Joe L’Amarca Oct 30
S. Stricket
Are you a blackwater trained murder also ?
For your info. Mr. Bush also made a commitment to the people of the U S but instead he betrayed us .
He also murderd a lot of his citizens dont you think that he,and his gangster buddy’s should be punished ?
Also he murdered over a 100,000 women and children in Iraq dont you think he should be punished ?
One more fact if you are a U S soldier read the U S constitution (congress has the authoraty to raise a standing Army to protect our borders ! so how did our borders stretched out there in Iraq?
Reply