Peter Worthington, Sun Media, 2008 01 02:
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:
Article LINK
Deserters are fleeing the consequences of their own decisions
By PETER WORTHINGTON
Last Updated: 2nd January 2009, 8:39am
As 2008 ended, a Northwestern University (Illinois) sociology professor made a pitch in a Toronto Sun column on behalf of U.S. military deserters seeking refuge in Canada.
John Hagan, who is also a University of Toronto professor emeritus, takes issue with Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's view that "U.S. military deserters are not genuine refugees and do not fall under internationally accepted definitions of people in need of protection."
He says denying U.S. deserters the right to stay permanently in Canada "on humanitarian and compassionate grounds" is untimely, unfair and wrong.
He also feels Kenney's view contradicts previous immigration minister Diane Finley's promise that each deserter's application to stay permanently in Canada would be determined on an impartial, case-by-case basis.
Hagan does not think immigration officers are independent or impartial in deciding cases, but follow policies outlined by the minister. He calls Kenney's statements just before Christmas "not only unexpected and untimely, they were unfair."
Although Hagan is a sociology professor, he specializes in law and criminology and has written books on deserters in Canada, war crimes in the Balkans, youth crime, and such.
What weakens his overall argument is that former immigration minister Finley's case-by-case "promise" is not necessarily incompatible with the new minister Kenney's more blunt observation that deserters don't qualify as refugees whose lives are in danger.
In his Sun article, Prof. Hagan doesn't use the word "deserter," but a dozen times in the piece he calls those seeking asylum "war resisters."
Many seeking sanctuary in Canada call themselves "conscientious objectors."
But most, if not all of them, enlisted in the military, and it's pretty difficult to view anyone who joins the army as being either a conscientious objector or a "war resister." Yet this is their claim, and the argument of their sympathizers and defenders.
During the Vietnam conflict there was a draft -- conscription. Draft-dodging is qualitatively different from deserting. The latter carries the taint of cowardice.
Most Canadians are probably not very admiring of those who join the army (for whatever reason) then cut and run rather than do what soldiers are expected to do.
Some deserters deported to the U.S. have received prison sentences of up to 15 months, which is hardly life-threatening.
Kenney is 100% correct -- deserters are not genuine refugees, but individuals trying to escape the consequences of their own decisions.
As well, they show considerable chutzpah, seeking refuge and favours from a country whose young men and women have volunteered and in Afghanistan are being killed in ever-rising numbers.
It could be argued that, in this particular war, those in the U.S. who join the army and then change their minds err when they head north for asylum.
Go south, young American deserter, to a country that is not at war.
The "fear" Prof. Hagan says many "war resisters" feel about the Harper government sending them back from whence they came, speaks volumes about the type of person fleeing his responsibilities.
One would think that courage, if not individual decency, would dictate that deserters face the consequences of their act rather than beg for sympathy from a country that is doing more than its share of difficult, dangerous and honourable work in Afghanistan.
Historically, Canada is not a warlike country; Canadians are not a militaristic people. But when, as a country, we have gone to war, our citizen-soldiers want to get the job done quickly, efficiently and are formidable fighters without losing their humanity.
Look at the humanitarian work our soldiers do in every theatre.
Pity "war resisters" lack the ethic that resonates in Canadian soldiers.
