• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. Military Deserters in Canada Megathread

Gawd help us all.  As a thought exercise only, could a few non-authority types take it on their own to black bag these guys (because you know he won't be the last to hide in a church) and hand them over?  Not inciting, just ruminating out loud, as it were.
 
I don't understand deserters. How the hell do you not know what you're getting into when you join the ARMY.
 
You know I can actually understand maybe a conscientious Objector moving to Canada during the Vietnam draft.I actually can.Some people it would go against all their religious beliefs etc.I get that.

What I don't get is men signing up now and when they are asked to deploy they decide they are against the war.I think its a big scam to get a easy pay check then skip out on your obligations when asked to do so.

What ever happened to men having a bit of pride and honour?Doing what you agreed to do.

As for the church,set up a cordon around the place dont let anyone in or out.The building (and thats all it is) is hiding a illegal.Starve him out.If that doesn't work in a couple days go in and get him so he can be medically treated for starvation.Charge the priest with aiding a felon.then deprot him and put the priest and church members in jail.
 
Kat Stevens said:
Gawd help us all.  As a thought exercise only, could a few non-authority types take it on their own to black bag these guys (because you know he won't be the last to hide in a church) and hand them over?  Not inciting, just ruminating out loud, as it were.

I'm sure if we looked hard enough around here we could find somebody willing to do a cash job ;D I'll go grab my hat for the collection.
 
X-mo-1979 said:
As for the church,set up a cordon around the place dont let anyone in or out.The building (and thats all it is) is hiding a illegal.Starve him out.If that doesn't work in a couple days go in and get him so he can be medically treated for starvation.Charge the priest with aiding a felon.then deprot him and put the priest and church members in jail.
Putting up a cordon?  I agree.  Nothing in or out.  He'll come out eventually.  As for charging the minister (they don't call themselves priests in the UCC) and the church members, then you'd be going against hundreds of years of tradition.  Sticky ground that.  I'd avoid it, personally.
 
He eventually has to come out, and he'll be sent back eventually just like everyone else. These guys should really stop hiding in Canada. Not only are they skipping out on their obligations, but they also make their problem someone else's problem as well. Start running to Mexico, its easier to hide. :p

Some people's kids...
 
Technoviking said:
Putting up a cordon?  I agree.  Nothing in or out.  He'll come out eventually.  As for charging the minister (they don't call themselves priests in the UCC) and the church members, then you'd be going against hundreds of years of tradition.  Sticky ground that.  I'd avoid it, personally.

The minister may be entitled to some kind of protection from prosecution, but church parishioners are civilians.  Charge every one of them with anything to do with this guy with obstruction, harbouring a fugitive, jay walking, littering, public nut scratching or anything else you can think of.
 
Kat Stevens said:
The minister may be entitled to some kind of protection from prosecution, but church parishioners are civilians.  Charge every one of them with anything to do with this guy with obstruction, harbouring a fugitive, jay walking, littering, public nut scratching or anything else you can think of.

Eh, it's sanctuary in a church, not sanctuary at a minister's residence. Members of the church should be freely accorded the right to enter their church, and if they happen to bring along some groceries with them, so be it.

Really the only way to do something about this would be to eliminate the concept of sanctuary from the legal lexicon. Since it's a fairly well established bit of common law, that would of course require an act of parliament specifically eliminating the practice.

And, well, quite frankly I don't think any of our politicians have the spine to do so. Especially not over something like this. In order to make the change, something will have to occur that will cause actual public outrage. Probably something along the lines of Paul Bernardo holing up in his local cathedral.

Make no mistakes, the government is going to do what it can to get this guy back to the states, not for any reasons related to justice, but merely to improve foreign relations. But they're certainly not going to go out of their way to do so, and they're not going to do anything that would potentially cause an outcry against them. It's just not worth it. Indeed, same thing would likely occur if it was a deserting Canadian soldier hiding in a church basement.
 
gcclarke said:
.. Really the only way to do something about this would be to eliminate the concept of sanctuary from the legal lexicon. Since it's a fairly well established bit of common law, that would of course require an act of parliament specifically eliminating the practice. ...

- Remember when some churches spoke out and got political during an abortion debate?  A certain Bishop got a call from an 'official' reminding him that tax-free status cold be lost in a case of political influence. the churches shut up.

- Same thing could be done here.
 
Just a house keeping note - The thread title has been shortened back down to
"US Army Deserters in Canada" and the "[Update: One deported, more to go & some "interesting" comments from Bob Rae]" removed. It was very dated.
 
TCBF said:
- Remember when some churches spoke out and got political during an abortion debate?  A certain Bishop got a call from an 'official' reminding him that tax-free status cold be lost in a case of political influence. the churches shut up.

- Same thing could be done here.

This is where we're getting into tricky ground. It is perfectly acceptable for a church to proclaim that abortion is reprehensible, etc. It's not acceptable for them to suggest that their congregation should vote for a particular party because that party would help abolish abortion. Not that there actually is a party in this country that would be willing to do such a thing. Even the Conservatives realize that to do so would be political suicide, and thus they are quite willing to completely ignore the radical fringes of their own party on this particular issue, vocal as they might be.

But as for the sanctuary thing, is this really a political issue? Or, more accurately, is it a Canadian political issue? Not really. If any political commentary is being done here, it is directed at American policy / politics, not Canadian. And frankly, I don't think that commentary on politics in another country would be even close to being enough to warrant stripping a church of its tax-exempt status under current guidelines.

Which isn't to say that I don't think that this church shouldn't be stripped of that status. I just think they all should be. :)
 
Seeking sanctuary (Middle ages)UK
http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/Cambridgeshire/1612.html

If an unarmed fugitive managed to reach a church he could claim sanctuary inside it for up to 40 days. His pursuers were not allowed to follow but someone would have to guard the building during his period of sanctuary. Entire villages and towns could be fined if the outlaw escaped.


USA Law.
http://www.slate.com/id/2147879/

Yet I can find nothing on Canadian law.

If the church members want him inside,fine.As I said shut it all down.Cut power and water.Send in a phoneline and call every 15 minutes to see if he is ok.Once he doesn't answer storm the building and bring him out.For his safety.

Technoviking,why would a minister hold a higher profile than say a physiologist?Is there a law or something?I looked around but couldnt find anything for reference.
 
X-mo-1979 said:
Technoviking,why would a minister hold a higher profile than say a physiologist?Is there a law or something?I looked around but couldnt find anything for reference.
I'm not sure what you mean...
 
gcclarke said:
This is where we're getting into tricky ground. It is perfectly acceptable for a church to proclaim that abortion is reprehensible, etc. It's not acceptable for them to suggest that their congregation should vote for a particular party because that party would help abolish abortion.
And why wouldn't it be acceptable?  Churches/religions are all about behaviour and codes of conduct.  That sort of stuff.  If church "a" finds behaviour "x" to be reprehensible, then why would they say "x" is reprehensible, but not say "do something about it"?

But, this is OT.

In the end, this fellow will have to leave that church and give up to the authorities.  As for explicit Canadian Law on Sanctuary, I am not 100% certain; however, I believe that English law can be used as precedent, no?

Lawers?  Anyone?
 
gcclarke said:
Really the only way to do something about this would be to eliminate the concept of sanctuary from the legal lexicon. Since it's a fairly well established bit of common law, that would of course require an act of parliament specifically eliminating the practice.

And, well, quite frankly I don't think any of our politicians have the spine to do so. Especially not over something like this. In order to make the change, something will have to occur that will cause actual public outrage. Probably something along the lines of Paul Bernardo holing up in his local cathedral.

The reason politicians haven't proposed changes is not because they are spineless, but because they don't have to; they is no such thing as church sanctuary in Canadian law. Or U.K. law for that matter.  The previous post by X-mo-1979 has a link giving a brief history on the subject and that it was abolished in 1623, almost two and half centuries years before Canadian Confederation. 

In reality, the police can enter a church to haul your sorry butt down to the hoosegow anytime they want, and I might add have done so the past. The only reason they don't is because (a) its very rare (b) more often then not it becomes a media circus and not worth the aggravation, and (c)there is no immediate reason to do so (the person inside is no threat to Canadian society). On the other hand, if Paul Bernardo had taken sanctuary in a church, the cops wouldn't of hesitated one second before going in and arresting him.

In fact, the only place in Canada where you could claim "sanctuary" is in a foreign embassy, and that only depends if they want you.

 
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100707/war-dodger-court-100707/
The Canadian Press
Date: Wednesday Jul. 7, 2010 6:46 AM ET

TORONTO — The Federal Court of Appeal says a Canadian immigration official failed to consider the hardships a high-profile American deserter in denying him permanent residence in Canada.

In a unanimous judgment Tuesday, the court called the immigration officer's rejection of Jeremy Hinzman's application "significantly flawed" and "unreasonable."

The court ruled that officials must take another look at Hinzman's application to be allowed to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Hinzman was the first U.S. Iraq War resister to seek refuge in Canada.

He, along with his wife Nga Nguyen and their son Liam arrived in Canada on January 3, 2004.

Their daughter Meghan was born in Toronto on July 21, 2008.

The Federal Court of Appeal noted that Hinzman holds "strong moral and religious beliefs" against participation in war.

The immigration officer "had the duty to look at all of the appellants' personal circumstances, including Mr. Hinzman's beliefs and motivations," the court said.

"This decision is important for all Iraq War resisters in Canada," said Michelle Robidoux, spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign. "The Federal Court of Appeal has clearly said that immigration officers can no longer ignore the sincerely held beliefs of these soldiers."

Hinzman, of Rapid City, S.D., was a former U.S. Army specialist from the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, N.C.
 
I am beginning to loose faith in our courts.  This precedence will open up a whole new can of worms.  Canada will now become the refuge for all who want to claim, legitimately or illegitimately, refugee status and our relations with friendly nations, as the US, will deteriorate.  I can see Trade, and other sanctions, being applied on us, all because we accept the unlawful deserters of allied nations.  This weak kneed ruling has now set a precedence that many will now use and abuse. Our international relations will no doubt suffer for it.


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


Federal Court of Appeal rules in favour of U.S. war deserter

By Philip Ling, Canwest New Service
July 6, 2010

LINK

OTTAWA — The federal government’s bid to deport an American war deserter from Canada has been dealt a blow by the Federal Court of Appeal.

In a unanimous decision Tuesday by the three-judge panel, the court ruled that an immigration officer’s decision rejecting Jeremy Hinzman’s application for permanent residence in Canada was “significantly flawed and therefore unreasonable.”
The U.S. soldier arrived in Toronto in 2004 in protest of the Iraq war and is seeking a bid to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

His lawyer, Alyssa Manning, told Canwest News Service the appeal was made on the basis that the immigration officer did not take into account Hinzman’s beliefs and motivations — including a belief that the Iraq war violated international laws and human rights — in returning the humanitarian and compassionate decision.

“This officer missed the point and only considered refugee-type questions,” she said, highlighting that refugee cases typically only consider risk to life or risk of persecution.

“A H&C (officer) is supposed to consider humanitarian and compassionate values — the questions inherent with a H&C application,” Manning said.

“Hinzman’s beliefs, his whole reasons for being in Canada in the first place weren’t considered by the H&C officer, and that’s what was significantly flawed about (the officer’s) decision.”

Hinzman and his family are “quite relieved with the decision,” said Manning. “They’re definitely very pleased with that.”

Hinzman served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003. He applied for conscientious objector status when the Iraq war began but was denied.

He then moved to Toronto with his wife, Nga Nguyen, and son in January 2004. The couple has since also had a daughter, born in Toronto.

In 2008, he was ordered deported, but Hinzman appealed, saying he will be jailed if he returns to the U.S.

His deportation was put on hold while the judicial review took place, with his deportation case heard in May before the Federal Court of Appeal.

Manning said Tuesday’s Appeal Court ruling can only determine if the H&C officer’s decision was reasonable or not — rather than deciding if Hinzman can stay in Canada.

Hinzman’s H&C application will now go back for reconsideration by a new officer. There is no timeline as to when the application will be heard, Manning said.

Michelle Robidoux, a spokeswoman with the War Resisters Support Campaign, said Tuesday’s court decision “is important for all Iraq War resisters in Canada.”

“The Federal Court of Appeal has clearly said that immigration officers can no longer ignore the sincerely held beliefs of these soldiers,” she said. “It’s time for the Harper government to stop deporting them and to let them stay in Canada.”

Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney did not immediately respond to a question for comment Tuesday night.

Since 2008, Canada has ordered the deportation of as many as seven U.S. war deserters and their families.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

 
Wonderful.  I wonder WTF a person who has "strong objections to war" is doing in the military.  It's a volunteer force, for crying out loud.


Now, is this "Federal Court of Appeal" part of the supreme court?  Or is that it?  Open the gates, let the cowards in?
 
If he feels that strongly, he should return to the US and run for public office. He's a coward who does not want to be held accountable for his actions.
 
In 2008, he was ordered deported, but Hinzman appealed, saying he will be jailed if he returns to the U.S.



So I guess our extradition treaty with the US also becomes null and void?  Same principal.
 
Back
Top