Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
To Corey Glass, Pierre Trudeau's Vietnam-era proclamation that "Canada should be a refuge from militarism" must ring a little hollow in 2008. Two summers ago, the 25-year-old Iraq War veteran left his post with the U.S. Army, resisting re-deployment to the catastrophic five-year occupation. Since August of 2006, Mr. Glass, like others seeking refugee status, has been a resident of Toronto, calling the Parkdale community home. This week, with his bags packed and ready, Glass was "shocked" to learn that his deportation order—due to expire today—was stayed, granting him temporary refuge in Canada.
Last month, the federal government stated that it would ignore a June 3 motion of Parliament in which opposition MPs voted 137 to 110 to allow conscientious objectors—a designation disputed by the Immigration and Refugee Board—to remain in Canada. In response, Parkdale residents and the War Resisters Support Campaign organized an ongoing series of public rallies and panel discussions (the photos for this article were taken at last Thursday's emergency rally), outing the hawkish, pro-U.S. policies of Harper's minority government as a democratic failure. "It's frustrating as a Parliamentarian," Parkdale–High Park MP Peggy Nash told Torontoist, "to see our Prime Minister take his cue from George Bush and the Americans, rather than Canadian Parliamentarians who are representing the interests of Canadians." With two-thirds of the country in support of granting permanent residency to Iraq War resisters, Harper's intransigence, to Glass's supporters, borders on absurd. "I think the government is making the wrong decision," Nash continues. "There's an opportunity for them to correct this, and I'm hoping that with enough public pressure, they will see reason and rescind the [July 10] deportation order."
At the last minute, Mr. Glass was granted a temporary reprieve while his legal battle unfolds, a process that could take months. And while a recent ABC News report suggested that Glass was discharged from the California National Guard on December 1, 2006—four months after his arrival in Canada—the former Sergeant disagrees, saying that the U.S. news goliath had phoned in its homework.
"The guy from ABC News called to tell me what he'd found out from the military," Mr. Glass told us, "and they had to have the story published before I had time to talk to a military lawyer in the States to find out what this actually entailed." The July 2 report quoted Major Nathan Banks, a spokesman for the U.S. Army, as saying, "He is not considered absent without leave. He is not considered a deserter." Claiming the issue to be overblown, Maj. Banks states that "He is fully welcome in the United States. I cannot believe this is a big deal in Canada." Mr. Glass, however, isn't so confident. "They didn't get the whole story, really," he says, "which is that I'm still liable for everything, and that I'm even more likely to go back to Iraq now than I ever was before, without the desertion. I haven't been given a formal discharge; I don't have a DD form 214."
The difference between today and the Vietnam War, critics assert, is that the fifty thousand-or-so draft dodgers of the Trudeau era were fleeing conscription, while war resisters—according to ABC News—are seen as "volunteers unwilling to fulfill their promise to the military and [are] undeserving of refugee status." In this case, however, Mr. Glass and others are resisting redeployment under stop-loss, the so-called "back door draft" that involuntarily extends active service for veterans beyond their tours of duty. "My MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) typically gets stop-lossed because of the nature of the job that I was trained to do," Glass says. "And we get stop-lossed a lot."
Glass enlisted on July 30, 2002. "I signed up for the Indiana National Guard," he says, "and my recruiter told me that I'd be there to help during floods, hurricanes, tornadoes—Indiana has a lot of tornadoes—and so I thought, yeah, I'd like to help out with that." With the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, however, the resulting strain on personnel mobilized the U.S. National Guard alongside regular forces, an outcome Glass and others didn't expect. "[My recruiter] said the only way I'd go to war is if there were troops trying to overrun America in America. We'd been in Afghanistan at that point; we hadn't invaded Iraq yet." Upon asking whether he would be sent to fight a war on foreign shores, Glass was assured by his superiors that he'd be safe. "That's why I did it," he says. "If I wanted to go fight in a war, I would have joined the regular Army."
While the federal courts have backed off somewhat, amnesty for Corey Glass and his fellow veterans is by no means assured. Grassroots efforts in both Canada and the United States continue, aggressively petitioning the Canadian government to allow "deserters" to remain in their adopted homes.
Looking ahead to the U.S. election in November, Mr. Glass is hopeful. "I hope Obama gets in and pulls the troops out of Iraq," he says. "Maybe then they'll start admitting the war was wrong in the first place. I mean, this is my home now." He pauses, a pensive shadow crossing his features. "We don't want to go to jail for deserting an illegal war and, as we see it, upholding the Nuremberg Principles. There's due process in America, but it's biased."
All photos by Miles Storey.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Abortionists say that women should be able to murder their baby because they shouldn't be forced to be pregnant. Deserters claim they shouldn't be deported because they weren't able to choose whether or not they wanted to fight.
Well, women can choose before they spread their legs, and deserters could have chosen before they signed the enlistment contract. If you sign up to be a soldier, even if its only the National Guard, expect to have to fight. Its what soldiers do.
You know, I've never thought "you know what would strengthen my argument, an insulting abortion analogy".
As for the topic at hand, I am sorry that the guy did not contemplate the consequences of his actions in joining the national guard, but to suggest this guy is a refugee fleeing persecution does a great disservice to real refugee claimants. Its really just a backdoor for the anti-american left to criticize our neighbours foreign policym, which is why half the NDP caucus is devoting its time (and public resources) to pushing this.
Ultimately, I advocate for free labour markets and mobility, and on those principles anyone who wants domicile in Canada should be permitted to stay, including this guy, but his claim makes a mockery of our current legal framework.
My analogy aside, I am in complete agreement with you.
I'm not sure I understand the "real refugee" argument. His governement wants to send him overseas to put him in the way of conflict where "real people" are getting killed. It's not a very big leap, folks, to see that American soldiers' lives are at risk and to deport him would put his life at risk. Would we send a "real refugee" back into a war zone? No.
I also find the lack of empathy is disappointing. After all, it's not like he didn't serve. He served his time, fulfilled his contractual requirement (regardless of what it was that he thought he was signing up for), and instead of being discharged as promised he's been stop-lossed - essentially being illegally reenlisted.
And that abortion analogy is simply despicable and weak-minded.
And that abortion analogy is simply despicable and weak-minded.
So was the author's quotation of "Troot-Owe".
I agree the abortion analogy is insulting.
Lest we forget that the War in Iraq is an illegal war of aggression, there is no question in my mind to grant Mr. Glass permanent resident status. Should he just be a "good German", and go off to Iraq and commit war crimes?
Before you reply, pickletoes, go re-read a little history about the Nuremberg Trails which ironically were honourably mainly driven by Americans. Those found guilty of wars of aggression in that trial were sentenced to either death, or life in prison.
Mr, Glass should get permanent residency in Canada, and the Bush administration should be on trial.
Tuds
The difference being that the Trudeau quote was apropos. This article has nothing to do with abortion, abortionists, fetuses, womens' rights or pregnancy issues.
By the way, good piece Todd.
(4), I invite you to look at FAQ 1. and 3. on this page.
http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-immigration-faq-refugee-status.html
Notably absent from the list are middle class, self-sufficient persons whose views on conflicts their country is involved in do not dovetail nicely with the governing administration. Real refugee claimaints face a real and demonstrable threat of harm or persecution. He faces, at its highest, an extremely remote and contingent chance of suffering harm if, as you suggest, he was back to war, in a combat role, in a high risk area, and came under attack, and perished. Its not far from claiming that if sent back he could be harmed if he got a heart attack from eating too much southern cooking. Your claim that he is being deported into a warzone is patently false.
I doubt very strongly in any event that this deserter would be stop-lossed (which is not illegal, as you describe, though certainly controversial). Most soldiers don't want to serve next to deserters. But assuming there is a risk that he could be stoplossed, on that logic, anyone enrolled in the armed forces of America who take a trip to marineland on their summer break is a potential refugee claimant. And while the IRB is processing the guy with the inflatable dolphin in the waiting room, the fates of people fleeing strife, or persecution, or the risk of being sold into sexual slavery, from countries where the rule of law is only a rumor are hanging in the balance, being prevented domicile, not being able to start building a life in Canada (check the existing backlog).
In other words, there are many more worthy people.
In contrast, this guy is deported into the worlds richest industrial democracy, and may face some punishment from a military tribunal for breaches of service he freely admits to committing. There is a difference.
Jonathan: I know that this situation has nothing to do with abortion. I was merely drawing parallels between the similarly absurd ways in which the left approaches the issue. That is, the way in which liberals fail to hold people accountable for their choices, actions and commitments.
Tuds: While I am personally against the Iraq War, its not even vaguely similar to WW2. The American Government's reasons for invading Iraq were dubious, but now that the conflict has started the citizenry are slowly reaping the benefits of democratic government. Compare that to Nazi Germany whose army repeatedly attacked the people and the governments of its adversaries. There's no systematic aggression against an ethnic or religious group in the Iraq War.
I am sorry that the guy did not contemplate the consequences of his actions in joining the national guard
Yes, how silly of him not to have contemplated in 2002 that the US would embark on an illegal war, in which US soldiers would commit countless war crimes, and that in service of this war, the federal government would employ an unprecedented use of national guard troops.
This is not the case of a person who enlisted with the intent to serve in the US armed forces and now simply changed his mind and does not want to fight.
The Nuremberg trials clearly established that "just following orders" is no defence to committing war crimes. The US is committing war crimes in Iraq. A US soldier is placed in an impossible position: obey orders that cause him to participate in war crimes, or disobey orders and face court martial. Because of that false choice, Canada should open its doors to US war (of aggression) deserters.
Pickletoes, get some new material. You already trotted out that crap about women spreading their legs once before and it's offensive, stupid and ridiculous. Are you saying that women should be forced to have a baby, even if they know they don't have the means to look after it? Or are you saying women should only be allowed to have sex when they want to have a baby? Either way, you're so far out of touch with reality it's laughable.
(8), I don't disagree that there's a difference. But looking at your Refugee FAQ, all of the points made are mere examples of typical refugee claims that are accepted. A more broad reading can be found at the same site at http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-immigration-refugee-status.html
Granted, the key term used here is "persecution" and it would certainly be a stretch to say that Glass is being persecuted in any conventional sense of the word, but not entirely without some consideration. You really don't think the guy's life is in any danger, however, he clearly does. Declaring, "your claim that he is being deported into a warzone is patently false" doesn't make it so. The "War in Iraq" and the "War On Terror" aren't terms I just made up.
The assertion about whether there are more worthy people is, I suppose, valid debate. However, it assumes that Glass' defection is a victory only for him and that Canada (or anybody else) doesn't benefit from it.
(9), yes, those damn "liberals"...always letting everyone off the hook! The thing is, the "commitments" that Glass made did not involve being shipped off to Iraq. At least this is what he claims. Put it this way: he may be a deserter now, but if he thought that he was going to be involved in the Iraq war would he really have volunteered in the first place and even allow that possibility? That just doesn't make any sense. The trouble with "conservatives" is they think everybody else is lazy and stupid (and probably high) and trying to get away with something.
...and the problem with false dichotomies is they're wrong at least 50% of the time...
Pickletoes once again helps us understand what the misogynistic antichoice movement is really all about: a perverted sense of sexual morality. They give a S.F.A. for babies, and simply want women to suffer consequences for expressing their own sexuality.
So thanks, Pickletoes, for confirming once again what we already know to be true about you.
McKingford: I didn't know you knew that about me. You must be a mind reader.
While I can see where PickleToes has drawn parallels between abortion and war resistance, you seem to have missed one.
From what i can see, in either case, there is a point where the person involved is removed of their choice.
For example, a woman who walks home at night from a shift she chose to work and is raped and impregnated did not have a choice in the matter.
In the same way, Mr. Glass signed up to help those in need when disaster strikes, but because he enlisted, he is "obliged" to serve his country in a foreign country in a war he opposes. There is no way he can choose not to participate in something he was not expecting to be.
While you trot around with this notion that they had a choice, you forget that at a certain point, some people don't.
McKingford: Unfortunately for Glass, the Nuremberg Principles have no legal weight in Canada, as seen in the ruling of Hinzman v. Canada:
This seems to be the exact opposite of Nuremberg Principle IV, and undermines the UNCHR resolution 1998/77 that one may become a conscientious objector while performing military service.
That foolish ruling aside, it seems obvious to me given UNCHR 1998/77 and NP IV, and the 18 month (to 5 years, potentially) sentence for desertion, that conscientious objectors face persecution upon returning to the US for acting on their beliefs ("political opinion" as the Refugee Status page says). It's not death by firing squad, but it's punishment all the same.
But is there any reason to think that letting Glass or other COs stay, or that consuming time and resources on their cases means turning away victims of ethnic cleansing? Is the quota that blind?
(It's pretty disturbing that the vocal rightwingers here think you should be sent to prison for refusing to shoot civilians, abuse prisoners, and commit other war crimes, because it breaks a contract you didn't agree to.)
A few questions for the more informed peanut gallery:
So the word illegal is getting thrown around a lot, but is that true by any measure or just a sentiment (as far as I know stop-loss isn't illegal)?Furthermore, what exactly faces Mr. Glass should he go back to the States? Is he taking the red eye from Toronto to Basra, facing military tribunal (or some sort of trial), or going to jail? Assuming redeployment is off the table, why can't he make his case in the US instead of Parkdale? It seems like he might have a case if the recruiters committed fraud (and from what I've seen of those GO GUARD commercials they probably did). If not, he does some time it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
(1) Declaring, "your claim that he is being deported into a warzone is patently false" doesn't make it so. The "War in Iraq" and the "War On Terror" aren't terms I just made up.
Unless he is being deported to Fallujah, I stand by my position: he is not being deported into a war zone. Your attempts to characterize the United States as a war zone is either extremely disingenuous or dim.
(2) conscientious objectors face persecution upon returning to the US for acting on their beliefs ("political opinion" as the Refugee Status page says).
With respect, I don't think this is a fair reading of "persecution". He is not being persecuted for his belief that the war in Iraq is wrong. His belief will not subject him to undue restraint or put him at threat. Lets also reflect that his view is actually the majority opinion in the US these days, shared by one of the major political parties and espoused by half the candidates on the primary campaign trail. Lets also stop ignoring the comments of Major Banks in the article above that this guy is not considered a deserter (if we are going to take his claim that he did not sign up to fight wars at face value, its only fair to give the same benefit of the doubt to the others quoted in the article).
It is true he may face punishment for his actions of desertion (though not according to Banks). If so, he is not being persecuted for his beliefs but rather condemned for his actions. There are good reasons why soldiers are not given the choice to report to duty based on the mission that I don't think need repeating here. In any event, I don't believe it is likely he would face jail time- he has not deserted an active mission or gone AWOL from the front lines. This guy just didn't report for duty when called, which sounds like a garden variety dishonourable discharge. Throughout he will have the utmost due process and government provided representation. I agree with rek that imprisonment would extremely harsh in the circumstances.
(3) It's pretty disturbing that the vocal rightwingers here think you should be sent to prison for refusing to shoot civilians, abuse prisoners, and commit other war crimes, because it breaks a contract you didn't agree to.)
I'm not sure who you are referring to (im neither vocal nor a rightwinger), but I think you have stacked the deck in this dichotomy you present. The choice isn't between deserting and becoming a souless killing machine for bid daddy GWB. As rocketeer alludes, if his position is based solely on high principle, one would have thought he would accept the consequences, if any, for upholding that principle. In the end he is asking Canada to shield him from responsibility for his actions.
I also find it ironic that those who are standing up for refugees fleeing strife and persecution in places where trial by ordeal is still practiced are being described as right wingers. I remember when the left used to stand up for oppressed persons instead of using one guy's unfortunate situation and choice to further their vendetta against America.
[19], of course I'm not saying the US is a war zone. Can you state for 100% certainty that he won't end up in Fallujah (regardless whether he passes through the US first)?
Also, I don't think Major Banks is a reliable source of information. Until we see the DD form 214, he's still on the hook.
And can we stop already with this left/right bullshit already. It's really irrelevant strawman name calling.
Again, the infinitesimal chance that he ends up in Fallujah does not meet the test of serious test of harm. I really encourage you to read some IRB decisions to see how it is applied - it is a high standard. And the "regardless" in your sentence is incorrect - the test applied is whether the harm will be faced in the country or nationality of deportation.
I see, you take the putative refugee at his word (despite the inconsistencies of some of his statements and the obvious fact that he is being coached to present the story in a compelling way -this is afterall presented at a fundraiser for him and his ilk) but dismiss the response of the institution he abandoned out of hand. Selectively approving facts on the basis that they serve your argument is intellectually dishonest.
The two champions of this guy on PH are (Toronto area) NDP MPs, and one spoke at the fundraiser reported above. This is accurately described as the political left.
x_the_x,
Compelling arguments. I am sympathetic to Glass however, as my father left the United States and illegally avoided the draft. Were it not for his illegal action, I'd have never been born.
re mastered: You're right about that, and of course I was talking about consensual sex. Those who were raped should be able to go ahead and get an abortion.
As for Corey Glass, he signed up to be a soldier. National Guard or not, soldiers are expected to fight at the whim of the Government. If Glass really did not expect this to be the case does he have anybody else but himself to blame for such ignorance? He freely gave up his right to choose whether to fight, when he chose to sign up.
x_the_x, the institution of which you speak is known to be less than honest. And I don't think the "regardless" in my sentence was incorrect at all; the chain of possible events which could put him in the line of fire isn't theoretical or infinitesimal.
And of course his champions are NDP MPs - the Tories are the ones that want to send him back...and, well, there really isn't anybody else to stand up for him other than the Liberals. Now you're going to tell me that the Liberals are left wing too?!? ;)
rocketeer said
I'd say leaving your home and family and friends and country behind is a pretty high personal cost. I doubt he would ever be allowed to return without facing arrest.
I have to disagree that Glass and Key and Hinzman and others have tried to avoid responsibility or accountability for their actions. They follow an earlier generation seeking refuge from having to wage war here in Canada. They have popular opinion and international law to support their actions — having the UN recognize the US/UK as occupiers does not change the definition of conscientious objection, or change the situations that led to Glass becoming such an objector. If trying a legal defence is shirking responsibility, then anyone who hires a lawyer instead of just pleading guilty is similarly accused.
If you read the article you'd see Glass was packed up and ready to go back and face the music. If he was just trying to get off the hook, he'd have kept running the minute the outcome here looked doubtful.
What should be generating more discussing is Harper's decision to ignore the majority of elected representatives of Canadians, after campaigning on a platform of correcting "democratic deficit". Will voters remember all the broken promises of free votes and open discussion when it comes time to vote (this fall, I hope)?
The horse is almost dead, but the issue is with the IRB and now the courts. What parliament has to say about it, short of legislation granting amnesty to he and other deserters, is entirely irrelevant.
You're right about that, and of course I was talking about consensual sex. Those who were raped should be able to go ahead and get an abortion.
Proving once again that you don't give a damn about babies, you just want to punish women who willingly have sex.
Having met and spoken with Corey Glass in a totally casual setting, I find it a bit offensive that someone implied he's being 'coached' to tell his story in a certain way. Yes, there's a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle propaganda that goes on in modern media, but I don't really see what the personal gain would be for him to promote an elaborate lie, after leaving his friends and family. He... gets to live in Canada? Great.
Even if you have to look at every story with a measure of cynicism, at least focus it on the manipulation of the case for political firepower (which is pretty clear, even if I happen to support Glass), and not on whether his story is fake.
On the subject of the 'inconsistencies', which appears to only be the matter of whether he was discharged/is considered to be a deserter/whatever, I don't really see a problem here. Both Glass and the US military contradicted ABC News, which makes sense, as they both should know better. And while the US Army says that he's 'welcome to return', that doesn't really contradict Glass' fears... that he could go back, and just get sent back to Iraq. Where's the inconsistency, really? Certain things just aren't overtly mentioned.
McKingford: That doesn't prove it all. I don't want to punish any of the stakeholders in reproductive sex. Especially the defenceless newborns. Despite trying to make it appear subtle, your support for infanticide is easily perceptible.
I don't want to feed the troll, but "defenceless newborns"? Come on, he does nothing but bring down the level of conversation.
FRAUD: Military recruiter lied to Glass
ILLEGAL AGGRESSION: America illegally invaded Iraq like Germany did Poland in September 1939
WAR CRIMES: countless Iraqi civilians injured, raped, tortured, and murdered by some American troops
I support Glass's CO, and feel Canada has a moral obligation to grant him PR status.
Tuds
rek: Calling people "anti-choice" is similarly harmful to the conversation.
Sorry, who did Mr. Glass abort again?