Posted on 11/27/2004 3:16:53 AM PST by Clive
Days before George W. Bush comes to Canada, three of his countrymen have been dealt a blow in their campaign to receive refugee status and be allowed to live here. Jeremy Hinzman is one of the three claimants -- former members of the U.S. military who refuse to fight in Iraq.
The federal refugee board declared that it is irrelevant whether the Iraq war is legal or illegal. It does not, they said, have any bearing on Hinzman's right to stay in this country or be declared a valid refugee.
The board is quite right, of course. What it should also say is that these three men should stop wasting Canadian time and money and be sent back to the free and democratic United States where their punishment will be moderate and appropriate.
Appropriate because they were, indeed, members of the American military. They may go to prison for a while and then receive a dishonourable discharge from the armed forces. One would have thought that any person with principles would welcome such a fair conclusion.
I happen to be opposed to the war in Iraq, but that is not the point. The United States has a volunteer army and nobody is forced to serve. More than that, some of those applying for refugee status also volunteered for advanced units such as the airborne.
Forgive my cynicism, but surely by the time you complete basic infantry training and then advanced paratroop training you might have just the hint of an idea that your role is to fire guns at the enemy and obey orders.
It's particularly troubling because there are thousands of deserving refugee claimants, many of them black and brown and poor, who are desperate to enter Canada and who face torture and execution in their homelands.
Their welcome has never been as generous as that given to people who run away from the United States. And it is this attitude, surely, that characterizes the hostility being directed towards President Bush as he prepares to visit Canada.
It may well be that Bush's foreign policy is unfair and unwise but that has relatively little to do with it. He is despised by the chattering classes in Canada for the same reason that a bunch of deserters are so lionized. Because it's a way of screaming at the United States.
And why do they scream at the United States? Because they are jealous, smug and bitter. I'd like to sound more understanding, I really would, but the evidence does not allow me such an indulgence.
For decades various Soviet leaders visited Canada and we heard barely a whisper from labour leaders, Canadian nationalists, television personalities and newspaper columnists. Yet these men directed a foreign policy that made the clumsiest of American excesses appear generous.
When the Soviets invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia and murdered so many of their people, when half of Europe was imprisoned, when grotesque terrorist movements were sponsored and trained, there were no mass demonstrations in Canada or calls to indict assorted Soviet bosses.
Similarly with China and its rape of Tibet and subjugation of its own people. Maoist leaders visited Canada and only members of the Chinese diaspora protested. The Canadian left and its media representatives found these various Marxist thugs to be meaningful rather than monstrous.
The hypocrisy runs deep, and so does the guilt. Canada's immigration policy, for example, was inherently racist for more than half a century. During these years the Americans opened their doors to people who because of their race or class were considered to be beneath Canadian standards.
None of this makes Canada a bad country. It does, however, make Canada a lesser country.
Like a child who constantly measures his self-worth by how nasty he can be about his big brother, even when the sibling has done nothing wrong.
American policies deserve to be criticized but only by those who have a moral right do so, based on their own consistency and integrity.
As for the American deserters, they can go home, face their punishment like men and then write best-selling books about the horror of it all. Books that will no doubt become best sellers in good old Canada.
The process is unduly favourable to claimants and has become a quick and easy way to jump the queu to get landed in Canada. Not much different happens in the US except that Canada is more generous with welfare payments and health benefits while the claimant awaits determination of his or her claim.
In this respect, the US deserters are not treated any differently. Regardless of the merits of a claim, the claimant has a right to avail himself of the process. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that once a foreignor's foot has touched Canadian soil he has recourse to the full procedural rights and safeguards that any Canadian would have.
We must distinguish between the merits of a claim and the procedural right to advance the claim and the right to remain while so doing.
But even in the US, a claimant will be recorded and released pending his claim and many simply disappear into the cities, only to be seen again if they commit crimes.
There was one important difference in the case of the draft-dodgers of the Vietnam era- they had no choice at all in the matter. These guys, OTOH, were volunteers who knew (or should have known) that they signed a contract to kill people and break things when so ordered.
And yes, I do oppose conscription- any society that is unable to motivate enough people to defend it is a society that's hardly worth defending.
We have an agreement!!
Conscription isn't just about defending the country. It is about having a stake in America. I don't agree that everyone should be forced into the military, there are other ways of serving the country. However, I do believe that every male should serve some form of service to the country. On that point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I suspect that both our minds are pretty firmly made up on this point.
Lots of different names are attached to mandatory service, most of which are intentionally negative. In many countries, conscription consists of a miltray truck driving through different neighborhoods and picking young men of draft age up and taking them to a processing center. At the processing center, they are given a cursory medical exam, fitted for uniforms and sent to whatever military base they will be assigned to. When the conscript has an opportunity, he is allowed to call his family and tell them not to hold dinner, he won't be home for awhile.
If our draft service worked that way, we would be in compete agreement. But the American system of selective service gives draft-age men ample opportunity to show why they shouldn't have to serve, and provides a number of different exemptions.
The fact is that mandatory conscription may not be the most fun thing you will do in your life but, IMO, it also isn't the worst. And, as I noted previously, I don't believe that the military should be the only form of mandatory service, but I do believe that there should be some form of mandatory service. Once you have provided service to your country, your perspectives change about things . . . . . . sometimes.
Sometimes, sometimes ...
Outright lie. "Homelands" refers, in part, to the United States, based on what is all said in the article. Blacks here in America face TORTURE under the U.S. gov't?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Your reading comprehension needs some upgrading. What the author is saying is that while Canada is entertaining the refugees status of a few U.S. deserters, there are the black, brown and poor (i.e. Sudanese, Nigerians, etc.) who face torture and execution back home if they fail to recieve refugee status in time.
"Your reading comprehension needs some upgrading."
My reading comprehension has ALWAYS needed an upgrade!
This author is saying that although he doesn't agree with Bush or the War on Terror, those three deserting U.S. soldiers trying to get refugee status deserve to be sent back to the U.S. and face the music for their desertion. He is saying that claiming they will face undue persecution back home is laughable.
But I guess if he doesn't like Bush or the War on Terror then everything he has to say is anti-US and lies, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.