A march against the deportation of U.S. war resisters in 2008. Photo: designwallah/Flickr

Canadian war resisters lost a pivotal battle in parliament on September 29 when Bill C-440 was defeated on its second reading by a vote of 143 to 136.

This vote will impact the roughly 200 war resisters living here; where they are like any other Canadians, drinking Tim Horton’s coffee, raising children, paying taxes and actively participating in their community. I have met and worked with many resisters and I am the one enriched by the exchange. They are good people and this is a tough blow to take.

The War Resister Support Campaign is trying to put on a brave face but the disappointment is palpable. Sure, there is a difference in losing a battle but winning the war, but I can’t help but feel like the campaign has lost one front in a two-front war.

“This is a setback for Iraq war resisters seeking permanent resident status in Canada, but our campaign to make the government respect the will of the majority of Canadians on this issue is far from over,” said Michelle Robidoux, a spokesperson for the War Resisters Support Campaign. “These courageous men and women have the support of two-thirds of Canadians across the country, and they are still threatened with punishment if returned to the United States.”

This is the not the first time the campaign has taken their fight to parliament but both prior motions to allow war resisters to seek sanctuary in Canada were non-binding and ignored by Stephen Harper.

Bill C-440 was meant to amend Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection system to allow soldiers resisting wars not sanctioned by the United Nations to seek sanctuary in Canada and called for the immediate halt of all deportation hearings. It was a private member’s bill brought forward by Liberal Gerard Kennedy and seconded by NDP Bill Siksay.

According to the blogger Dr. J from Your Heart’s on the Left, before the vote “Bill C-440 offers a ray of hope for these troops, that rather than killing, getting killed, or killing themselves over participation in an illegal war featuring torture and war crimes, they can seek sanctuary in Canada.”

I felt the same way.

Disappointment

Some of the disappointment around the C-440 vote stems from criticism of the behaviour of the Liberal Party on that day in parliament.

I remember working on the campaign back then and it seemed noble at the time that the Liberals (and this took a lot of negotiating) had signed up to politically support war resisters and perhaps lend weight to a motions that so far had been non-binding.

While the success of a private member’s bill was debated, it seemed like the Liberal Party had rode into Dodge on a big white horse, promising victory through the unification of the official opposition (they meant the NDP and the Liberals, since Bloc had already expressed its own support).

Some of us veteran activists were wary, but newer resisters — and thus new to Canada and Canadian politics — thought the Liberal Party support was a gift from heaven, despite the fact that Olivia Chow and the NDP had backed the campaign from the jump.

In an email from Chow’s office on Sept. 29, after Bill C-440’s defeat, an NDP member writes, “All New Democrats (36) including our leader Jack Layton, voted in favour of the bill. Unfortunately, dozens of Liberal members of parliament, including Michael Ignatieff, Judy Sgro, Ruby Dhalla, John McCallum, Derek LeBlanc walked out just before the vote, and Liberal Alan Tonks joined with the Conservatives to vote against the war resisters.

This was a major setback because until this vote parliament has voted in support of two New Democrat’s motions (from Olivia Chow, NDP immigration critic) to let the war resisters stay. It was astounding and disappointing to see the Liberal leader and some of his high profile MPs helping to defeat his party’s own private members bill.”

In another email from the NDP on Oct. 1 — this time written by party leader Jack Layton himself — he states, “While all New Democrat MPs voted in favour of this legislation, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff abandoned Mr. Kennedy and his bill when he and dozens of Liberal MPs walked out just prior to the vote. Ultimately, their action led to C-440’s defeat!”

A war over war resisters

Not without controversy, there are strong opinions on either side of the debate to keep war resisters in Canada. Jason Kenney, the minister of citizenship and immigration, had referred to war resisters as “bogus refugees”. 

Toronto Sun columnist, Peter Worthington, wrote, “There may be individual cases among those fighting deportation, who deserve Canada’s generosity. But a blanket approval would be to insult and scorn thousands of our own citizens who join the army, and re-sign when their original contract expires, and endure repeated tours in Afghanistan.

“Polls can be misleading. Many who say they support sanctuary for ‘war resisters’ and/or ‘conscientious objectors,’ might not be so quick to voice approval of ‘deserters’ or ‘cowards.’

“Bill C-440 seems another ploy to re-focus Canadian values, and in a way dishonours those who don’t like war, but do what they see as their duty and live up to their word.

“That’s what courage is. And that’s how 143 MPs voted last Wednesday.” 

On the flip side, others are inspired by the courage of these men and women. Not only the courage it takes to leave their units, friends, family and country behind, but also the courage it takes to come forward and admit that they made a mistake, they changed their minds, and they no longer want to participate in what they now believe is an unjust and illegal war.

Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, applauds the choice Iraq war resisters like Jeremy Hinzman and others made by following their conscience. He went further to state that if Jeremy Hinzman were to be incarcerated for deserting the U.S. military, Amnesty International would consider him a Prisoner of Conscience. 

Academy award winner Michael Moore called Canada’s treatment of current war resisters “shameful.” 

And 64 per cent of Canadians support war resisters’ right to remain in Canada according to a 2008 Angus Reid poll.

Bill C-440 was the legislative strategy the campaign was pursuing to allow war resisters to stay. The other half of the strategy is based on challenging the legitimacy of the resisters’ refugee claim denials and subsequent deportation orders.

According to a War Resister Support Campaign press release issued after the Bill C-440’s defeat, campaigners try to keep things positive. It’s upbeat concerning Jeremy Hinzman’s refugee case. “Coincidentally, Wednesday was also the last day of the Government of Canada’s window to challenge the Federal Court of Appeal decision in the case of resister Jeremy Hinzman.

“In a unanimous ruling on July 6, 2010, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the government’s assessment of Mr. Hinzman’s bid to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was substantially flawed because it did not take into account his sincerely held religious, moral and political beliefs against service in the war in Iraq. Jeremy’s case will now be sent back for reconsideration by a different immigration officer in accordance with the court’s ruling.

“The government’s failure to file an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in Mr. Hinzman’s case means that the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision stands.”

For more information on Hinzman’s July 6, 2010 ruling, please see this backgrounder.

Reading it, I feel a shimmer of hope.

Krystalline Kraus writes the G8/G20 Communique blog for rabble.ca.

Krystalline Kraus

krystalline kraus is an intrepid explorer and reporter from Toronto, Canada. A veteran activist and journalist for rabble.ca, she needs no aviator goggles, gas mask or red cape but proceeds fearlessly...