Shocking Supreme Court Decision

Canada Immigration Forum (discussion group)


 
       
Subject: Shocking Supreme Court Decision
  RE: Canada´s Supreme Court refuses refugee appeal hearings for two U.S. Army deserters

"We call on Parliament to take a stand by enacting a provision that would allow U.S. war resisters and their families to stay in Canada," said actor and activist Shirley Douglas.

"Today´s decision means that the situation is urgent for the many others seeking refugee status," said Lee Zaslofsky, coordinator of the War Resisters Support Campaign. "It´s time to get Canada´s parliament to act in a way that Canadians believe in -- that the war is wrong and not wanting to fight in it is a person´s right."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21819383/
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/15/hinzman-decision.html

Iraq war resisters should qualify under refugee and asylum provisions. What a shame. Canada should get a backbone on principles and not cow-tow to it´s powerful southern neighbor. I think if the Liberals were in power this would not have happened.

[16-11-2007,20:52]
[**.47.168.9]
Richard
(in reply to: Shocking Supreme Court Decision)
Richard, I respect your feelings on this matter but the issue may be as simple as the applicants not meeting the criteria...

"Canada offers refugee protection to people in Canada who fear persecution or who may be at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and are unwilling or unable to return to their home country."

I really don´t know if a Liberal majority would have change the outcome today. Refugee status was not offered during the Vietnam war either and the Liberals were in power at that time.

[16-11-2007,21:52]
[***.121.220.199]
Sharon
(in reply to: Shocking Supreme Court Decision)
a further quote from the news:

´An immigration panel in March 2005 denied Hinzman political asylum, saying he failed to convince them he would be persecuted if he returned to the U.S. The board also denied asylum to Hinzman´s wife and son.

The Immigration and Refugee Board members said the U.S. is a democratic country and would provide Hinzman with a fair trial.´

this is the decision that was held up in the Supreme Court today. In 2005 the Refugee Board would have been appointed by the Liberal government. (I can´t remember exactly when the Conservatives took office) There have been very few appointments to the Supreme Court since the Conservatives have taken office so, this is about interpretation of the law rather than political will.


[16-11-2007,21:59]
[***.121.220.199]
Sharon
(in reply to: Shocking Supreme Court Decision)
I agree with Sharon.

Also think that Liberals also couldn´t do anything in this regard.

Similar incident may happen to many other Army, not only US. Then Canada may have to face some complications.

[16-11-2007,22:37]
[**.154.164.253]
Departed_Canadian
(in reply to: Shocking Supreme Court Decision)
Sharon/DC - you guys are probably right. The Liberals may not have acted any differently. And I couldn´t remember what happened to Vietnam refugees applications.

But you can tell this really bugs me. These U.S. Army refugees more than likely face prison time back home. Their applications were based on human rights issues regarding an immoral war. That is, the Iraq War as a violation of human rights, as determined by many respected international organizations. Canada also did not accept the legitimacy of this war. Canada´s Supreme Court´s role, it seems to me, is to decide human rights and moral issues and protect associated victims and/or refugees. To me, this was an abandonment of these principles by the court.

I still suspect Harper´s U.S. sympathies had something to do with this outcome.

[16-11-2007,22:59]
[**.47.168.9]
Richard
(in reply to: Shocking Supreme Court Decision)
Richard,

About the legitimacy of the Iraq war like any peace loving guys I also fully agree. Though most of the nations don´t agree with US (Bush to be appropriate) many are still their supporters.

However, for Canada granting refugee to the desertees is not that easy as it may appear.

This is my thinking.

Canada took part in the Afgan war. Still they have force there, risking their lives. For whom? Canadains? If today Canadian troop members start revolting and fleeing then how would Canada tackle? If Canada provides shelter and encourages foreign Army personal to leave their force then what morality would it have to keep their own force?

If troop members start coming from UK, France, Spain..whoever don´t like to participate in war then how would Canada handle? All countries then start bashing Canada for breaking their force.

[16-11-2007,23:14]
[**.154.164.253]
Departed_Canadian
(in reply to: Shocking Supreme Court Decision)
Yes, good points DC. But there´s a difference between the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. One is legitimate and sanctioned by the UN, and accepted by the world community. The other basically is a unilateral action condemned by most of the world. Refugee and asylum principles are based on agreed international standards.

Cuban refugees are always granted refugee status in the U.S., but most other refugees from other countries are denied. Double standard policies exist because the situations are different - i.e., country, war, or politics.

But I agree about the possible difficult political situation Canada might fin itself with the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan, if it granted refugee status in this case. You have a good observation here.



[16-11-2007,23:25]
[**.47.168.9]
Richard
(in reply to: Shocking Supreme Court Decision)
the other consideration is there is no draft or mandatory military service in the US at the moment. If I am not mistaken, both these gentlemen elisted in the military or Reserves voluntarily.

I don´t think this is about the merits of the conflict and as hard as it is to separate the two.


[16-11-2007,23:49]
[***.121.220.199]
Sharon
(in reply to: Shocking Supreme Court Decision)
Enlisting in the military does not mean forced to accept subsequent immoral policies and actions. These guys did not enlist in the Iraq war. They enlisted to defend the U.S.

I recall many Vietnam era officers refusing to accept illegal orders, which is still a legitimate action under the UCMJ articles of the uniform code of military justice.

From the news reports:

Hinzman, 28, fled from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in January 2004, weeks before his 82nd Airborne Division was to be deployed to Iraq. He had served three years in the Army, but had applied for conscientious objector status before his unit was sent in 2002 to Afghanistan, where he served in a non-combat position after applying for CO status.

[17-11-2007,00:01]
[**.47.168.9]
Richard
(in reply to: Shocking Supreme Court Decision)
Richard, please understand that my comments do not support the actions of the US in Iraq. The Supreme Court cannot be swayed by emotion. They must look at the letter of the law. These young soldiers were not beyond a democratic trial and that is one of Canada´s criteria to grant refugee status.

Regardless of our empathy with the circumstances, we are forced to apply a standard that must remain universal.

I 100% appreciate your sensitivity in this matter and I can stand with your sentiments on the issue but the courts extend beyond those emotions and must act on the law - fair or otherwise.

[17-11-2007,01:02]
[***.121.220.199]
Sharon
(in reply to: Shocking Supreme Court Decision)
Richard,

Today´s world Un is nothing but a peper tiger. US doesn´t care a bit about it. Many countries also supported US action in Iraq directly or indirectly.

I think Sharon brought the most reasonable point. Court has to go by laws regardless of emtion, based on the current law. According to the existing law Canada can´t give shelter to them.

This is again a irony or double standard I can say, though not intentional. As in the same Canada many criminals, murderer got political assylums based on false stories, fake identities. Here we have genuine humanistic case that can´t be granted due to legal complicacy. Sometimes in this world falsehood prevails over honesty.


[17-11-2007,02:05]
[**.152.203.222]
Departed_Canadian