NDP MP Olivia Chow speaks in support of U.S. Iraq war resisters in Canada - August 7, 2009

Just days before Iraq war veteran Rodney Watson faces deportation by the Harper government, Immigration Critic Olivia Chow speaks out in support of the Iraq war resisters at a vigil in Toronto, Canada.

More info or to get involved:
http://www.resisters.ca/

July ‘08 was the birth of Iconoclast out of the ashes of the Indymedia feud. The last of the ‘Reconcilliation Meetings’ took place with the end result being the split of the group into two factions. The first crew stayed with Indymedia and have operated the website to some degree since. The second faction started Iconoclast Media. Since then, we have produced 13 consecutive monthly zines, a regularly updated website, our first public panel discussion (with focus on the War Resisters), and taken part in a number of social functions locally. We plan even more in the year to come, with fresh blood in the group and plenty of exciting ideas.

The July 27/ ‘08 London Pride parade was a festive event enjoyed by nearly everyone in attendance. Nearly everyone, because there were a handful of haters with signs denouncing the rights of homosexuals. They were congregated around Dundas and Wellington, silently milling around. When asked to further explain these positions they were advocating, they responded with short non-answers. “We don’t need to explain this to you.” One might think that they would be more anxious to get their message out there. Especially since they were greatly outnumbered by their opposite, the Anti-Racist Action group. These were a substantial number of mainly youth, some with their identities hidden, others not. They stood in front of the haters with signs of their own. The crowd seemed to get quite a kick out of this. It was heartwarming and entertaining to see. The absence of some of the more notorious local haters was refreshing too. Wayne Kellestine, who has come out to shout hate at the gays regularly in the past, was missing this year due to his incarceration over the Bandidos murders of ‘06.

The anti-Wal-Mart/ Save Meadowlilly Woods campaign reached its peak around Sept ‘08. After several well attended info sessions to build awareness and screenings of docs like “The High Cost of Low Prices” and “Wal-Mart Nation”, the coalition of various interest groups and concerned citizens developed a following. Along with attempts to influence the company and local politicians, an energetic rally at Victoria Park was held on September 6th as an expression of the animosity towards Wal-Mart and the appreciation of natural preserves like Meadowlilly Woods. As of now this fight continues.

The War Resisters Support Campaign in London has been a popular effort since its inception. They were really pushing the cause after the Parliament of Canada voted to let the US resisters stay in Canada. The vote was non-binding and the Conservative government decided to ignore it, choosing instead to follow the wishes of their ideological brethren in Washington. With several resisters here in London, the local community rallied behind them in large numbers. A decent turnout to the rally at Vic Park on Sept 13th, even though there was rain, was indicative of the level of concern shown on behalf of Londoners. The real demonstration of these feelings came on Monday Sept 15th at the London Convention Center, as hundreds came to greet Stephen Harper himself. The rally consisted of several different groups and causes - centered around a shared resentment of the Harper government - including the War Resisters, London District Labour Council, CAW, CUPE, ABC (Anyone But Conservatives), Anti-War Organization of London and the Council of Canadians. The large group shut down the York street area in front of the Convention Center and used chants, songs and puppets to send a message to our PM. On June 27^th, Iconoclast Media hosted a public panel discussion on the War Resisters at the Central Library. This struggle also continues. Let them stay!

The fallout of the ‘08 federal election led to a situation where the Liberals (still under Dion) were toying with the idea of a coalition government with the NDP, (with the Bloc in support.) The Conservatives cried foul, saying this was undemocratic and arranged to prorogue parliament with the blessings of the Governor-General. In between these events, however, fault lines appeared in the Canadian left - even locally. Many NDP supporters seemed to smell power, with thoughts of cabinet ministers dancing in their heads. Opponents to the coalition cited the Liberals support for war, pro-corporate and neo-liberal policies as evidence that the concerns of many activists weren’t on their agenda. The issue was divisive, with passionate stances adopted on both sides of the divide. This was evident at the December 4th Coalition Rally at Vic Park, which was a sea of labour and NDP/Liberal friends with cries of “Yes We Can!”. This was met by an Anti-coalition rally of anarchists and others distrustful of the Liberals. “We can’t let our votes for the NDP be extended to the corrupt Liberals.” In the end, the idea died as Ignatieff took control of the Liberals and expressed his cool feelings of any sort of power-sharing plans.

The December Greek rebellion was a major source of inspiration to our radical left. Originally an anarchist response to heavy handed police tactics, the population rose in rebellion against both the police and the state. The demonstrations were coupled with strikes and occupations across the nation. The youth in Greece are particularly radicalized by a past filled with confrontation with fascist state power and polarized politics. By attacking both capital and the state, the Greek insurgents showed that these are two sides of the same coin, a currency whose denominations are hierarchy, exclusion, and exploitation. They were not seeking merely another government, but another society altogether. Many here watched these events unfold with wide eyes. The simmering turmoil crossed Europe for a spell, climaxing Jan 29th - Black Friday in France. In England a lesser version was evident for Financial Fool’s Day on April 1st.

Suddenly came the Dec/Jan Israeli attack on Gaza - a brutal and hyper-violent assault on a mostly undefended people by the regional superpower. Day after day, the coverage was horrifying in its levels of violence; war crimes have since been alleged by several respected human rights organizations. December 30th a large group of people gathered at Victoria Park to express their dissatisfaction. Flags and signs, songs and chants filled the sides of Richmond at Central. The killing continued for weeks. A packed audience at the Wolfe Hall heard Norman Finkelstein talk on January 14th about the Israeli aggression on Gaza, and how the situation is spun into fairy tails here by the North American media. On January 23^rd Forwell Hall at Fanshawe was the scene of an inspiring rally for Gaza, including songs, speeches, poetry, and emotional testimony. UWO Students Taylor Davy, Ashley Annis, Peige Desjarlais, along with Dr Nabil Sultan and activist Beth Guthrie travelled with the Canadian Delegation to Gaza as part of Code Pink. They were invited by UNRWA, the Red Crescent, and the government of Gaza, to visit schools, children’s centres and hospitals and to report back to the Canadian people about the disastrous effects of Israel’s bombardment earlier this year, and the ongoing 19 month siege.

Empowerment Infoshop (636 Queens Ave) has continued to be an important center for activism in London. Open to all progressives, many local groups hold meetings and events here. Fundraisers, workshops, info sessions, presentations, concerts, discussion groups, and movie nights are part of the action. You can find radical books and literature, including Iconoclast and Linchpin on the shelves of their infoshop. Empowerment has played host to the War Resisters, Israeli Anarchists Against the Wall, the Re-Education Project, the Olympic Resistance Network, Iconoclast, BC Anarchists, Common Cause and the Grassy Narrows campaign in this last year.

The Fanshawe Social justice Club had a successful year too. Among the numerous events and campaigns organized by the club were the Fanshawe Rally to Drop Fees, two Really, Really Free Markets, the School of the Americas trip, the Second Annual ‘Empowerment Film Festival’, Israeli Anarchists Against the Wall, No2010 (which seems to have successfully discouraged a Coca-Cola sponsored appearance of the torch at Fanshawe), and a fairly major non-event in the absence of the Canadian military at the Fanshawe Career Fair this year. After two years of counter-recruitment demonstrations, such as the ‘08 ‘Die-In’, the school decided not to have the military didn’t participate in this year’s Career Fair. Apparently they didn’t want to have to use violence against their students to stop them from effectively voicing their opinions. The school’s administration doesn’t want confrontation, but they will continue being confronted.

On April 16/09, an incident between London police and some students on a Dundas street property between Beal and CCH escalated into a confrontation with many students surrounding the police after perceived aggression was carried out against a young female. The students had the normal, healthy and ethical reaction that people should have to injustice; they tried to stop it. The police called in for backup and arrested some of the students for ‘trespassing’. Hundreds of students responded with a march and demonstration in front of city hall and the downtown police station on April 17th. Outrage was expressed in various forms by witnesses and fellow students over the actions of London’s finest. “Fuck The Police!” was the cry heard over and over. The contradiction of the day-to-day oppression of the police apparatus upon the people of London was brought to the surface by the students of Beal.

On May 11th students demonstrated in front of the London courthouse in solidarity with their friends and fellow students being tried inside. The students voiced their opinions with signs, a megaphone and chants of “Drop all charges; Charge the Police!” and “No Justice, No Peace. No racist Police!” These young champions of civil rights were an inspiration to many in the city who find themselves tired of the stagnant complacency demonstrated by Londoners in the face of police brutality.

As bombs dropped on Iraq with “shock and awe”, killing hundreds of civilians, Jason Kenney fiercely defends George W. Bush and his administration in the Canadian House of Commons.

Please contact Harper’s Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and call on him to
respect Parliament and stop deporting U.S. Iraq War resisters to jail for
coming to Canada and saying no to Bush’s illegal and immoral war:

Ottawa: (613) 992-2235
Calgary: (403) 225-3480
E-mail: Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca

There is a long tradition of evading militarism in the US by heading north to Canada. Going back to the American Revolution and the War of 1812, some chose the alternative here. And we accepted around fifty thousand of them during the Viet Nam war. Most Canadians take pride in that. The situation is a little different today.

Canada has signed on to international argeements that make it an obligation for soldiers to refuse orders judged to be illegal. This came out of the Nuremberg Trials after the Second World War. This was a response to many Germans who claimed to have been “only following orders”. The United States assaulted and occupied Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council. In doing so they violated the same body of laws they accused Iraq of breaching.

Jeremy Hinzman was the first American Iraq war resister to seek refuge in Canada. Since then many others have joined him here realizing that were they to stay in the United States, they would be punished for their moral, political and religious beliefs. Many were disillusioned by the barbarity of the occupation.

In the last 11 months Parliament has twice voted for an end to these deportations. Our government has also been directed by the majority of MPs to establish a program to facilitate permanent resident status for Iraq war resisters. Many public opinion polls over the last couple of years consistently show roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of respondents are for allowing them to stay as well. Despite these democratic expressions of the will of the majority of Canadians, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney refuses to take action to accept Iraq war resisters’ requests to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

This begs the question ‘Why?’. Why would our minority government not follow the will of either Parliament or the public that they represent? Is this how democracy is served in Canada? Or is this how Washington is served?

iconoclastmedia presents:

A Panel Discussion on:

‘The Question of War Resisters in Canada‘
Featuring a Panel of:
Prof David Heap- London War Resisters Support Campaign
Wendy Goldsmith- People for Peace
Anthony Verberckmoes- Anti-War Organization of London
Ed Corrigan- Citizenship and Immigration Law Specialist
Alex Balch- Fanshawe Social Justice Club
American War Resisters in London

Saturday June 27th @ 1pm
Stevenson-Hunt Room Central Library

iconoclastmedia.net/category/war-2/war-resisters

resisters.ca londonresisters.ca

geocities.com/awol.london edcorrigan.ca

by Edward C. Corrigan                                                  February 19, 2007

“The key issue is whether or not the legality of the war is a relevant issue to the claim for protection. It will be interesting to see the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. This legal question may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.”

The entry of U.S. Army deserters who are refusing to fight in Iraq into Canada has brought into focus the legal issue of conscientious objection as a basis for making a claim for protection of Canada as a Convention refugee. It also raises political questions about our relationship with our powerful neighbour to the south.

American “War resisters,” who desert the United States Army and if they are forced to return to the United States, they face court martial before a military tribunal and possibly years in prison. The death penalty remains on the books in the U.S. as a possible punishment for desertion during wartime. However, it is interesting to note that the court marshal of Ist. Lt. Ehren Watada, for refusing to fight in Iraq ended in a mistrial.

During the Vietnam War (1965-1973), more than 50,000 Americans came to Canada, refusing to participate in what they felt was an immoral war. Canada accepted them into our country. At the time, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said: “Those who make a conscientious judgment that they must not participate in this war… have my complete sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been to give them access to Canada. Canada should be a refuge from militarism.” Thirty years later, Canada is faced with the same moral and legal issue - the question of giving refuge to those who refuse to fight in a US-led war.

In January of 2004, Private First Class Jeremy Hinzman, a soldier in the 82nd Airborne Division, came to Canada seeking refugee status with his wife, Nga, and son, Liam. Hinzman had fought in Afghanistan and considers himself an American patriot. Pte Hinzman said: “I signed up to defend my country, not carry out acts of aggression.” He refused to fight in Iraq, a war he termed illegal.

This issue “is being watched with interest by fellow servicemen on both sides of the border.” According to reports, “At least 20 others have already applied for asylum and there are an estimated 400 in Canada out of more than 9,000 who have deserted since the conflict started in 2003.”

In December 2004, the Canadian government intervened in Hinzman’s hearing before Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board, asserting that the legality of the war in Iraq had no relevance to his claim. The Board Member agreed that the legality of the war was not an issue in the claim for refugee protection. Many disagree with this legal finding.

After the Second World War, the Nuremberg Tribunal set out important principles of international law. Those principles established that soldiers have a moral duty, not a choice, to refuse to carry out illegal orders. It is the opinion of noted International law expert Francis Boyle that George W. Bush’s War against Iraq is a war of aggression and constitutes a Crime against Peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) as well as by paragraph 498 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

After the massive human rights abuses in the Second World War and the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg described the waging of aggressive war as “essentially an evil thing … to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal and Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote: “No political or economic situation can justify” the crime of aggression. Justice Jackson also said: “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

A war of aggression has been termed a Crime against Peace and is considered a War Crime. Wars are only deemed legal under International law if they are genuine acts of self defense or if they are expressly approved by the United Nations Security Council.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the distinguished American historian, and an advisor to President John F. Kennedy made the following comment on the Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive war: “Unilateral preventive war is neither legitimate nor moral. It is illegitimate and immoral.”

Schlesinger drew an analogy to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour: “One of the astonishing events of recent months is the presentation of preventive war as a legitimate and moral instrument of U.S. foreign policy This has not always been the case. Dec. 7, 1941, on which day the Japanese launched a preventive strike against the U.S. Navy, has gone down in history as a date that will live in infamy. During the Cold War, advocates of preventive war were dismissed as a crowd of loonies.”

Schlesinger also made the following observation: “The policy of containment plus deterrence won the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, everyone thanked heaven that the preventive-war loonies had never got into power in any major country.”

Schlesinger also said, “Today, alas, they appear to be in power in the United States. Rebaptizing preventive war as preemptive war doesn’t change its character. Preventive war is based on the proposition that it is possible to foretell with certainty what is to come.”

The rationale given by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq; namely that Saddam Hussein had links to the attacks on September 11, 2001 and had ties to Al Qadea have been proven to be false. In a poll conducted in September 2006 by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, a sample of American adults was asked: “Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September terrorist attacks, or not?” Forty-three percent of those polled answered yes.

The alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction have also proven to be non-existent. Virtually all of the “evidence” presented to support claims of the Bush administration for the invasion including the “biological weapons trailers” and “Niger Yellow Cake Uranium” have proven false or were outright fabrications.

The United States Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In its Report on the Iraq War “it also found that there was little or no evidence to support a raft of claims made by the US intelligence community concerning Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” The Senate Committee studied the problem for three years and its 400-page report is the most definitive public account of the intelligence used to provide a rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

No one has been prosecuted for presenting this false or misleading information, or for manufacturing fake evidence to support the drive to invade Iraq. However, the Courts in Europe are increasing recognizing that the invasion of Iraq was a criminal act and have accepted this argument as a defense for political action against the war.

According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, the U.S.-led “war on terror” has undermined the global ban on torture, weakening American moral authority on human rights worldwide. “The principle once believed to be unassailable — the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of the person — is becoming a casualty of the so-called war on terror,” Arbour said in a statement on Human Rights Day.

Arbour is a former Canadian Supreme Court justice and a chief prosecutor for the U.N. war crimes court for the former Yugoslavia. She praised past U.S. leadership on expanding political and civil rights because it allowed the Americans “to lecture others about their performances.” “To the extent that there’s a perception that there is a withdrawal from the high-water mark of commitment to civil and political liberties, I think it makes it a lot more difficult for the United States to exercise that kind of moral leadership on all human rights issues,” Arbour said.

The UN Commissioner of Human Rights “decried two practices in particular: holding prisoners in secret detention centers, which she said was a form of torture, and rendering suspects to third countries outside normal extradition procedures, that is, without independent oversight.” Arbour said “There are a lot of human rights that can be set aside in cases of emergency, lots of them, but not the right to life and not the protection against torture.” The United States has denied practicing torture but it has avoided denying or confirming a Washington Post report that the CIA runs secret centers in Eastern Europe to interrogate terrorism suspects.”

The United States has also come under heavy criticism for prisoner abuse and torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The heavy loss of civilian life and the conduct of U.S. troops have been heavily criticized in the on going occupation of Iraq. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair has admitted, “Iraq is a disaster.”

Jeremy Hinzman lost his “conscientious objection” refugee case at the IRB. He then applied to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the Immigration and Refugee Board decision rejecting his claim. However, the Federal Court upheld the negative decision but the case has been referred to the Federal Court of Appeal.

The key issue is whether or not the legality of the war is a relevant issue to the claim for protection. It will be interesting to see the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. This legal question may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Edward C. Corrigan is a lawyer certified as a Specialist in Immigration Law and Immigration and Refugee Protection by the Law Society of Upper Canada in London, Ontario.

As the war in Iraq drags on, support for the disastrous occupation thins out.

According to a recent CBS poll, nearly three quarters of American Democrats want to end the occupation of Iraq, and bring the troops home immediately. But it’s not only the Democrats.

Surprisingly, there is a growing wave of dissent amongst the very same American conservatives who, only a couple years ago, supported the war and occupation almost unanimously.

According to the aforementioned CBS poll, nearly half (45 per cent) of American conservatives, and more than a third (36 per cent) of registered Republicans think the war was a mistake and want the troops out as soon as possible.

As evidence of the barbarity, deceit and senselessness of the dubiously named ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ piles up, many American soldiers are also standing in opposition to the war, speaking out about their experiences and beliefs at anti-war rallies, and sometimes even refusing to fight.

Since the American-led assault on Iraq began in March of 2003, hundreds of American soldiers have broken their ranks, deserting the military. Many of these soldiers have fled to Canada rather than staying underground in the U.S., where they would be subjected to lengthy prison sentences and even the possibility of the death penalty (still on the books as a punishment for desertion in a time of war) if they got caught.

History seems to be repeating itself. American war resisters once flocked to Canada by the thousands in order to avoid fighting in the Vietnam War. Times were different then; the Canadian government was officially opposed to the war in Vietnam, and mass amnesty for all draft-dodgers and war resisters became the official government policy once Prime Minister Trudeau declared, “Canada should be a refuge from militarism.”

Lee Zaslofsky, one of the estimated 50,000 American soldiers who came to Canada in the Trudeau era, is still resisting war.

Today he is known as the founder and coordinator of the War Resisters Support Campaign, “a broad-based coalition of community, faith, labour and other organizations and individuals that have come together to support U.S. soldiers seeking asylum in Canada because they refuse to fight in the illegal war in Iraq.”

But this time around the Canadian government isn’t rolling out the red carpet. Instead they are dragging these conscientious objectors through the gauntlet of the legal system, and pushing through with deportation proceedings. This, despite the fact that Canada is ‘officially’ opposed to the war in Iraq for the same reasons that the war resisters are (violation of international law, aggressive nature, deceitful justifications), and that the majority of Canadians, including, according to the war resisters, 65 per cent of Ontarians, believe they should be allowed to settle here. Even the majority (53 per cent) of Conservative-voters in Ontario believe they should be allowed to stay.

We cannot allow our government to undermine the will of Canadians by deporting war resisters to the U.S. where they will face harsh punishments and prison sentences. Resist the war. Support the resisters. More details at resisters.ca
Darius Mirshahi

See www.londonresisters.ca for updates on how to support Matt and other war resisters. U.S. War Resister Matt Lowell, currently living and working in London, Ontario was facing possible deportation back to the U.S. on October 28 for following his conscience and refusing to fight in an unjust war. He was granted a temporary stay of deportation by the Federal Court on October 27

While there are those who would like to dismiss war resisters as “cowards,” the reality is that it takes exceptional courage to resist unjust, illegal, and/or immoral orders. For many resisters, it was their first-hand experiences as occupation troops that compelled them to take a stand. For others, “doing the right thing” and acting out of conscience began to outweigh their military training in obedience. Tens of thousands of service members have resisted illegal war and occupation in a number of different ways—by going AWOL, seeking conscientious objector status and/or a discharge, asserting the right to speak out against injustice from within the military, and for a relative few, publicly refusing to fight.

Matt Lowell went AWOL from the US Army at Fort Lewis, Washington. He is currently living in London, where he works in computer technology support while resisting Iraq deployment. “I can still look myself in the mirror. I didn’t have to shoot (an Iraqi) who’s doing exactly what I joined the military to do, to defend their country.”
Matt fled to Ontario three years ago, and could face seven years in prison for charges of desertion.

“What made me change my mind was a letter that a friend sent home from a friend who joined the military at the same time I did. He went to Iraq first.”
“In one of the letters he sent home, he was telling his mom he had to shoot a little kid because the kid picked up a gun,” Lowell recalled. “Then (after) everything on the news and finding out that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, no involvement with Al Qaeda at the time and absolutely no weapons of mass destruction, then I started to question what the military actually stood for.”

Now Lowell says he feels disillusioned. “In my mind the military is supposed to protect its people and protect its country. And what’s going on in Iraq is basically enforcing their will on another nation.”
“The decision that I got on the initial hearing – the illegality or legality of the war – was not going to be allowed into the evidence because it had no basis on our claim,” Lowell said. “I was in the process of getting kicked out when the stop loss turned into a charge of desertion.”
“What (that) means is due to a shortage of personnel, anybody who was in the process of getting out of the military, their contracts have now been extended.”

War resisters want nothing more than to work hard, and live in peace. They only ask that you give them a chance, the same chance that was given to the Vietnam generation. If you agree that it is wrong to persecute someone for having the courage to stand up and say no to fighting in an illegal war, then please support our cause, sign our petitions, contact the prime minister, and join our rallying cry: LET THEM STAY!

londonresisters@yahoo.ca

Iraq War Resister Sergeant Patrick Hart and his family were informed this week that they must voluntarily leave Canada or face deportation to the United States on October 30. The Hart’s refugee application was rejected by the Canadian Immigration Refugee Board. It is estimated that there are at least 200 war resisters living in Canada. In July of this year the Canadian parliament passed a non binding motion in support of Iraq War resisters being allowed to stay in Canada. Despite this, Canada Border Services Agency, continues to routinely effect deportation orders of US-Iraq war resisters.