I just got an email from Jason Kenney entitled Conservatives and Liberals Help Defeat Military Deserter Law. For the uninitiated, he is referring to a humanitarian bill introduced by Liberal Gerrard Kennedy and seconded by NDPer Bill Siksay to amend the refugee act to enable conscientious objectors to seek refuge in Canada, aka, C-440.
I’m not sure if he is delusional or dishonest? You decide.
You have all emailed or written me at some point to express your views on the issue of US military deserters and recent legislation to give them a special pathway for permanent residency.
As you may know, with bipartisan support from Michael Ignatieff’s Liberal Party caucus, the government succeeded in defeating the Bill. Here is a YouTube video of a question I answered during Question Period on the subject.
Mr. Minister, are you a congenital liar? “Bipartisan support from Michael Ignatieff’s Liberal Party caucus”? Most members in the Liberal Caucus voted in support of Bill C-440. In fact, in case it didn’t register, you almost lost the vote.
Daniel Ellsberg has been a hero of mine for close to 40 years. He’s the whistle-blower who destroyed the tissue of lies surrounding the U.S. war against the people of Vietnam, and what he uncovered has much to teach us about the origins of today’s wars.
The Academy-Award-nominated documentary about Daniel Ellsberg, “The Most Dangerous Man in America,” will be premiering on PBS on Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2010. Check your local listings for details. If you live in Winnipeg and get KGFE (Prairie Public Television, Grand Forks, ND) the program starts at 8:30 p.m.
PBS Synopsis
In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, a leading Vietnam War strategist, concludes that America’s role in the war is based on decades of lies. He leaks 7,000 pages of top-secret documents to The New York Times, a daring act of conscience that leads directly to Watergate, President Nixon’s resignation and the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg and a who’s-who of Vietnam-era movers and shakers give a riveting account of those world-changing events in POV’s The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers by award-winning filmmakers Judith Ehrlich (The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It) and Rick Goldsmith (Tell the Truth and Run: George Seldes and the American Press). A co-production of ITVS in association with American Documentary/POV. (90 minutes)
Michael Ignatieff and Co. can’t get enough criticism for their desertion of Bill C-440 to suit me. But let’s not deny the Tories their fair share of the shame. Against the will of most Canadians, the Tories have conducted a campaign of persecution against American war resisters since coming to power. In their slavish admiration of American imperialism, they ignore important aspects of international law. In their eagerness to crawl into bed with war criminals, they are complicit in some of the most horrendous crimes against humanity of this century.
The Tories spare no effort to prevent war resisters from exercising their right to conscientious objection. Wednesday’s defeat of Bill C-440, to which they unanimously voted “nay” is just the most recent example. Because the War Resisters Support Campaign web site is replete with examples of the Tory pogrom against conscientious objectors, I won’t deal with that here.
Instead, I want to address the standard Tory refrain that war resisters are “cowards” or “deserters” who should shut up, stay in the army and keep killing or rot in an American prison.
Nazis, Nuremberg and Numb Tory Memories
Despite their “Conservative” label, the Tories have forgotten important aspects of our shared history, chief among them the Second World War and the trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg in 1945 and 1946. In 1950, the UN International Law Commission codified the legal principles that emerged during these trials. The Tories would do well to acquaint themselves with the Nuremberg Principles because they are key to understanding why American war resisters should be granted sanctuary in Canada.
Principle VI states,
“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
A “war of aggression” is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense or the sanction of the United Nations. Under the Nuremberg Principles, a war of aggression is a “crime against peace.” The invasion of Iraq, perpetrated by the U.S. and its allies under the guise of protecting the world against non-existent weapons of mass destruction meets the definition of a “crime against peace.”
I have italicized those portions which apply to this invasion, a crime of overwhelming proportions which resulted in the destruction of a nation, the displacement of almost four million people and the death of an estimated 1.3 million. War resisters are refusing to participate in this crime, and who can blame them?
What of the Tory argument that war resisters signed a contract with the U.S. military and therefore should honour their contract (i.e., kill Iraqis in a “crime against peace”)?
Nuremberg Principle 4 provides some guidance. It states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
In other words, to say your were “just following orders” is no defense. War resisters understand this. They have made a conscientious decision to refuse to participate in this massive crime against humanity. War resisters embody the Nuremberg Principles; most Canadians recognize this and welcome them to our country.
“No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
If war resisters are not “political refugees” I don’t know who is. There is no question that they face imprisonment if returned to the U.S. because a number of them have been deported and subsequently jailed. It is clear that Canada is in violation of the UN Refugee Convention.
What now?
Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party are committed to deporting every American war resister they can find, regardless of Canadian public opinion or international law. Harper was an early hawk on Iraq, and there is no reason to believe he has modified his position.
Short of replacing them in the next election, we will not resolve this issue satisfactorily.
The situation is further complicated by the actions of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and a small gang of liberal MPs who absented themselves from Wednesday’s House of Commons vote on Bill C-440, thereby dooming it to defeat (143-136). I’m not a Liberal, but I sincerely hope the 57 Liberal MPs who voted for C-440 rouse their party to get rid of him. For more than a few reasons, he’s a liability Liberals can no longer afford.
In the near term, the best we can manage is to provide moral and material support to the War Resisters Support Campaign. That’s plenty enough to keep us busy.
Who killed Bill C-440, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to permit war resisters to remain in Canada? Well the numbers are in and the culprit is Michael Ignatieff and 17 of his colleagues who voted with their feet and left the House prior to the vote. Here are the numbers.
C-440 was sponsored by Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy and supported by the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and a huge majority of Liberals. It should have been a slam-dunk; previously, two Parliamentary resolutions supporting war resisters had been passed by the House of Commons. However, it lost by 7 votes, an avoidable defeat if Ifgnatieff had remained true to the words he had uttered two days before the crucial vote when he said:
“Canada has a tradition that goes back to Mr. Pearson and Mr. Trudeau of accepting people that come to Canada with conscientious objection to military service.”
Ignatieff had to have known that the absence of 18 Liberal MPs would doom the bill. If he didn’t want to support the bill, he could have at least emulated Liberal Alan Tonks (York South-Weston), who had the guts to stay in the House and vote against it.
Once more, Iggy fails to appear even remotely Trudeauesque — incapable of channeling the peace-‘n-love-Pierre or the more resolute War-Measures-Act-Trudeau.
On a related theme, for those who hope a vote for the Liberals is enough to get us out of Afghanistan next year, think again. In June, Ignatieff announced the Liberals support remaining in Afghanistan until 2014 to train Afghan troops and police, creating a military training institute in Kabul, much like the Royal Military College in Kingston. Dishonestly, in a war where the Taliban have been able to strike in Kabul at will, he says this is not a combat mission.
Michael Ignatieff has betrayed war resisters. More fundamentally, he has betrayed the majority of Canadians who want to end Canada’s military intervention in Afghanistan and to welcome American war resisters into our country.
Bill C-440, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (war resisters) failed to make it through second reading Wednesday evening by a vote of 143-136. The bill would have allowed conscientious objectors to non-UN sanctioned wars to seek refuge in Canada on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. Clearly, a majority of the MPs present lack humanity and compassion.
I was surprised that this bill didn’t pass. On two previous occasions, a majority of MPs voted to support non-binding resolutions in support of allowing war resisters to remain in Canada. With a reported 64 per cent of Canadians supporting war resisters, I thought the bill had a pretty good chance for success. Silly me.
This is not the Canada I grew up in and this is not the Canada I wish for my children and grandchildren. An ugly shadow is creeping across the land; mean-spirited and fearful men and women are undermining our rights and freedoms and transforming our country into a cog in the U.S. imperial machine.
Shame on them!
And shame on us if we allow this set-back to weaken our resolve to work for peace and to support war resisters who seek refuge here.
If you haven’t already done so, go to the War Resisters Support Campaign web site and see what you can do to help out. We must not let this go without a fight.
If it weren’t for blogs like Creekside or Dawg’s Blog (and many others) we would not have heard that the Combating Terrorism Act passed second reading in Parliament and is well on its way to being another nail in the coffin of Canadian democracy.
“Bill C-17: Combating Terrorism. (Oooh. Kickin’ in doors and swingin’ clubs, eh? Not really — it’s all about imposing court provisions to force people to testify if their neighbour who looks suspiciously Arabic buys fertilizer.)”
That’s it. Our mainstream media is pathetic at best, criminally irresponsible at worst.
Bill C-17 is a victory of sorts for those who want to make the Magna Carta history. Under the banner of “combating terrorism” the act will make warrantless arrests possible and provides for 12-month preventive imprisonment of people suspected of planning terrorist acts.
It is not too late to try and stop this outrage, but it will be difficult to overcome the Tory-Liberal bloc that voted for it.
Might I also suggest that we start writing to our local purveyors of news and tell them to wake up and start covering news that matters. (And send some kudos to the afore-mentioned bloggers — they deserve them.)
More than 250 Winnipeggers signed a petition yesterday afternoon calling on the Canadian Parliament to withdraw all Canadian troops from Afghanistan and to “not extend the military mission in any way, shape or form including training of local forces.”
Yesterday’s two-hour information picket in Winnipeg’s Osborne Village marked the beginning of a Peace Alliance Winnipeg campaign to help our fellow citizens express their opposition to Canada’s continued participation in the occupation of Afghanistan.
In addition to collecting signatures on the petition, PAW members distributed several hundred postcards produced by the Canadian Peace Alliance for communicating with Members of Parliament (Get yours here.) as well as several hundred copies of an information bulletin entitled Ten Reasons to Bring Canada’s Troops Home from Afghanistan.
Please help collect signatures for the petition.You can download it here. (Please mail completed copies to Peace Alliance Winnipeg, P.O. Box 1, Winnipeg, MB, R3C 2G1).
Additionally, you can sign the petition online, and encourage everyone else you know to do likewise.
And don’t forget to get in touch with your Member of Parliament. Let them know we appreciate it when our troops stay home and defend us where we really need them, such as Newfoundland, where they are helping Canadians cope with the aftermath of Hurricane Igor.
Paul Jay, of the Real News Network, argues that Canada’s rich elite, whose wealth grows in tandem with the rise in both unemployment and the federal deficit, has a special responsibility. Their decisions created the economic mess we’re in; they should pay for it. Right on! Are you listening, Stephen Harper?
With the American Empire assembling its forces for a nuclear assault on Iran, and children being born horribly deformed by the effects of depleted uranium in Iraq and Serbia, it was heartening to participate in the annual Lantern Ceremony in Winnipeg and hear MP Bill Siksay (NDP, Burnaby-Douglas) talk about the private members bill he and Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt) introduced last September calling for a Canadian Department of Peace.
Even if passed, this bill will not result in a Peace Ministry because private members’ bills cannot compel the government to spend money. That said, debating Bill C-447 could be educational; passing it would be highly symbolic of the desire that Canadians have expressed repeatedly for a government that promotes peace.
According to Bill Siksay, a major benefit of having a federal peace department would be the presence of a cabinet minister whose job would be to speak for peace at the cabinet table. While a little voice keeps telling me that we have environment ministers who don’t seem to care for the environment, health ministers who preside poorly over the nation’s health care system, and labour ministers who don’t give a damn about the working class, I still see his point. In our imperfect democracy, we need someone in government to utter the P-Word, forcefully and often. Watch the video and get some good talking points — then write your MP.
On Aug. 6, the 1945 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be marked with a Lantern Ceremony at Memorial Park in Winnipeg. The keynote address will be given by MP Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) on a private members bill (C-447) now before Parliament for the establishment of a Department of Peace.
Date: Friday, August 6, 2010 Place: Memorial Park (by the fountain, York Avenue and Memorial Boulevard) Time: Lantern making begins at 7:30 p.m.; speakers begin at 8:30 p.m.; lanterns will be launched at 9:15 p.m.
The annual commemoration of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings is part of a world wide observance held to promote nuclear disarmament and world peace. In Winnipeg, the event is sponsored by the Manitoba Japanese Canadian Citizens Association, Peace Alliance Winnipeg, and Project Peacemakers.
In August, 1945, after 6 months of firebombing attacks on 67 Japanese cities, US President Harry Truman ordered the atomic bombing of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9). The death toll was enormous – 140,000 in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945. Many more thousands died over the months and years to come from injuries and illnesses caused by radiation poisoning.
For many years, Winnipeggers have commemorated these tragedies and reaffirmed our commitment to peace and freedom from nuclear terror. We symbolize our commitment with a Lantern Ceremony.
The Lantern Ceremony is part of an ancient Buddhist Ceremony (O-Bon), that commemorates the lives of deceased loved ones. For many years around the world, this ceremony has been used on Hiroshima Peace Day to remember and embrace the memory of people who died because of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During these ceremonies, participants are invited to design a lantern that represents their thoughts and feelings regarding personal losses, global concerns of peace, nuclear disarmament and any other issues relevant to keeping our planet safe.
Video of last year’s Lantern Ceremony in Winnipeg
Sadako and a Thousand Paper Cranes
In addition to lanterns we will be making origami peace cranes to commemorate the story of “Sadako and a Thousand Paper Cranes.”
Sadako Sasaki, a young girl of 10 years old, became sick with leukemia from the effects of the atomic bomb in post war Japan. She believed in an ancient tale that if you made 1000 paper cranes, you would be granted a wish. She wished for good health.
She died before she completed making the cranes and her classmates completed the task for her.
Each year, thousands of paper cranes from all over the world adorn the statue of Sadako in the Hiroshima Peace Park in Hiroshima, Japan.
Bill C-447 – An Act to establish the Department of Peace
Bill Siksay, MP (Burnaby-Douglas) is the mover of Bill C-447 – An Act to Establish a Department of Peace. Seconded by Jim Karygiannis, MP (Scarborough-Agincourt ), the bill passed First Reading in the House of Commons, Sept. 30, 2009. Mr. Siksay will speak about this bill at the Lantern Ceremony.
You can read the full Bill in English and French, here: Bill C-447
1. Develop early detection and rapid response processes to deal with emerging conflicts and establish systemic responses to post-conflict demobilization, reconciliation and reconstruction
2. Lead internationally to abolish nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, to reduce conventional weapon arsenals and to ban the weaponization of space
3. Implement the UN Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace (1999) to safeguard human rights and enhance the security of persons and their communities
4. Implement UN Resolution 1325 on the key role played by women in the wide spectrum of peacebuilding work
5. Establish a Civilian Peace Service that, with other training organizations, will recruit, train and accredit peace professionals and volunteers to work at home and abroad, as an alternative to armed intervention.
6. Address issues of violence in Canada by promoting nonviolent approaches that encourage community involvement and responsibility such as Restorative Justice, Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)
7. Support the development of peace education at all levels including post-secondary peace and conflict studies
8. Promote the transition from a war-based to a peace-based economy.
Paul S. Graham 