Jump to content

C 440 Sanctuary Bill Dies


scribblet

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe it is the bill that allows American war defectors full pardons or some such nonsense.

I know libs aren't exactly soldier friendly but maybe the liberals wised up when they realised that trying to pass a bill that pardons yank draft dodgers and army deserters while Canadian ones (from the same wars even) are still punished was a bit of a stretch even for them?

Edited by grainfedprairieboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few issues with the bill:

1. Is there some reason the current refugee act cannot protect people who fear mistreatment by their government that would not be "the equal standard" of ethics and morals within Canada. Does Canada allow its forces to go AWOL without repercussions? If not the moral standard may be questionable - thus it may reduce to - are the military's standards for that country so as to expect unreasonable danger etc.. to the individual contrary to their beliefs; for example, forced servitude or cruel and unreasonable punishment, and a absence of international law on treatment of individuals eg. a violation of human rights? Or that Canada does not support the nation that is targeted for the warfare?

2. The second issue here is "armed conflict not sanctioned by the United Nations"- that is a disgusting line, as the UN should not sanction warfare period. This is a direct realization that Canada is engaged in a conflict sanctioned by the United Nations as part of ISAF. My opinion on that is clear.

Edited by William Ashley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is the bill that allows American war defectors full pardons or some such nonsense.

I know libs aren't exactly soldier friendly but maybe the liberals wised up when they realised that trying to pass a bill that pardons yank draft dodgers and army deserters while Canadian ones (from the same wars even) are still punished was a bit of a stretch even for them?

Exactly.

It was an amendment to existing legislation allowing U.S. war resisters to apply for permanent resident status.

Resisters is just a politically correct word for "deserter." Someone who volunteers for the U.S. army for whatever then decides they really didn't mean it. Maybe they should do their "conscientious objecting" in their own country, before they sign on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resisters is just a politically correct word for "deserter." Someone who volunteers for the U.S. army for whatever then decides they really didn't mean it. Maybe they should do their "conscientious objecting" in their own country, before they sign on.

You took the words out of my mouth. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been going on for almost 10 years. These guys knew exactly what they COULD have been asked to do. They took the money and education and then reneged on their committment. They are deserters....period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You took the words out of my mouth. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been going on for almost 10 years. These guys knew exactly what they COULD have been asked to do. They took the money and education and then reneged on their committment. They are deserters....period.

Ouch ! That is harsh dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch ! That is harsh dude.

Seems completely accurate to me.

The lefties who long for the war resister days of Vietnam seem to overlook the fact there is no draft and all of these people signed up voluntarily, almost always deriving a large economic incentive to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems completely accurate to me.

The lefties who long for the war resister days of Vietnam seem to overlook the fact there is no draft and all of these people signed up voluntarily, almost always deriving a large economic incentive to do so.

see Stop Loss

see (after the fact) conscientious objector status denied

see heavily suspect recruitment practices

see being lied to by your government over the rationale for the Iraqi war

more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defence spending as a percentage of GDP declined during every government after WW2. Except for Trudeau's. So, to say that the Liberals were any worse to the military than the Conservatives isn't being fair. Everyone had a hand in it. Biggest drop under Mulroney.

After apparent end of Cold War, sure. The Mulroney era was from 1984 to 1993, during which time the Soviet Union went out of business.

Edited by jbg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

see Stop Loss

see (after the fact) conscientious objector status denied

see heavily suspect recruitment practices

see being lied to by your government over the rationale for the Iraqi war

more?

See contract law. See, you're supposed to be an adult. See, you signed the contract and you knew the penalties for running. See prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems completely accurate to me.

The lefties who long for the war resister days of Vietnam seem to overlook the fact there is no draft and all of these people signed up voluntarily, almost always deriving a large economic incentive to do so.

see Stop Loss

see (after the fact) conscientious objector status denied

see heavily suspect recruitment practices

see being lied to by your government over the rationale for the Iraqi war

more?

See contract law. See, you're supposed to be an adult. See, you signed the contract and you knew the penalties for running. See prison.

see grounds for breach of contract

see U.S. government unwilling to entertain legalities

see war resisters flee

see Harper Conservatives conduct a campaign of persecution against war resisters

see war resisters seek relief

see Harper Conservatives deny relief

see Harper Conservatives deny Canada's obligation as a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. Article 33

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not refugees, they volunteered knowing about the wars then simply changed their mind to desert, if they were real conscientious objectors they wouldn't have signed up in the first place.

and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers. Off the top I'm more familiar with the wording associated to the Canadian Forces policy... a policy that speaks respectably of a soldiers decision, particularly one taken in the face of or as a result of active engagement. Are you purposely denigrating the Canadian Forces policy... why don't you support the troops?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers.

Anyone applying to join military forces should know at the outset that there is a possibility their country would ask them to deploy into conflict zones. Any recruits who object to war, regardless of the merits of said war, most probably held those objections before they applied. The fact that these objectors join anyway is a dead giveaway that they joined for the perks and not for a genuine desire to serve their country. What it amounts to is that conscientious objectors want the option of making the decision that some enemies are better than other enemies therefore they don't deserve to be killed. That's not their decision to make. You join, you're all in. If you run away from your initial commitment to your country's military, you're a deserter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers. Off the top I'm more familiar with the wording associated to the Canadian Forces policy... a policy that speaks respectably of a soldiers decision, particularly one taken in the face of or as a result of active engagement. Are you purposely denigrating the Canadian Forces policy... why don't you support the troops?

The policy acknowledges that people sometimes get religion. It does not and is not used for people who get cowardice. There are other avenues for that. Even so, once given CO status it does not mean that a person is discharged or even kept away from combat zones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers. Off the top I'm more familiar with the wording associated to the Canadian Forces policy... a policy that speaks respectably of a soldiers decision, particularly one taken in the face of or as a result of active engagement. Are you purposely denigrating the Canadian Forces policy... why don't you support the troops?
Anyone applying to join military forces should know at the outset that there is a possibility their country would ask them to deploy into conflict zones. Any recruits who object to war, regardless of the merits of said war, most probably held those objections before they applied. The fact that these objectors join anyway is a dead giveaway that they joined for the perks and not for a genuine desire to serve their country. What it amounts to is that conscientious objectors want the option of making the decision that some enemies are better than other enemies therefore they don't deserve to be killed. That's not their decision to make. You join, you're all in. If you run away from your initial commitment to your country's military, you're a deserter.

in regards conscientious objector status, as is your typical short-sighted, narrow mindset, you don't understand... or thankfully speak for... the Canadian Armed Forces. Apparently, battle induced situations have been known to awaken views that may not have been recognized/understood prior to engagement - go figure. Here... educate yourself: make sure you pay particular attention to the Obligatory Service section => CF members who are granted a voluntary release for other than compassionate reasons prior to the expiration of a period of obligatory service are subject to repayment of costs associated with the subsidized education or training or to repayment of the Pilot Terminable Allowance, the Medical Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance or the Dental Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance.

- DAOD 5049-2, Conscientious Objection

- DAOD 5049-1, Obligatory Service

The policy acknowledges that people sometimes get religion. It does not and is not used for people who get cowardice. There are other avenues for that. Even so, once given CO status it does not mean that a person is discharged or even kept away from combat zones.

"get religion"? Surely you're aware one doesn't need religion, or even to be spiritual. Most certainly, it's not something the Canadian Forces even recognizes... so... why would you? Feel free to offer the Dancer classification of cowardice to any of the following criteria - allowed objections and/or exceptions... it will be interesting to see whether the Canadian Forces are properly factoring the Dancer classification.

A CF member may request voluntary release on the basis of conscientious objection if the CF member has a sincerely held objection to participation in:

* war or armed conflict in general; or

* the bearing and use of arms as a requirement of service in the CF.

An objection based primarily on one or more of the following does not permit voluntary release on the basis of a conscientious objection:

* participation or use of arms in a particular conflict or operation;

* national policy;

* personal expediency; or

* political beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in regards conscientious objector status, as is your typical short-sighted, narrow mindset, you don't understand...blah blah blah

In your attempt to elevate yourself to the level of a superior being, what you fail to understand is that I don't give a crap about what your links say. I know what constitutes a conscientious objector and I posted my opinion of what I think of them, regardless of how the forces deal with the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in regards conscientious objector status, as is your typical short-sighted, narrow mindset, you don't understand... or thankfully speak for... the Canadian Armed Forces. Apparently, battle induced situations have been known to awaken views that may not have been recognized/understood prior to engagement - go figure. Here... educate yourself: make sure you pay particular attention to the Obligatory Service section => CF members who are granted a voluntary release for other than compassionate reasons prior to the expiration of a period of obligatory service are subject to repayment of costs associated with the subsidized education or training or to repayment of the Pilot Terminable Allowance, the Medical Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance or the Dental Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance.

- DAOD 5049-2, Conscientious Objection

- DAOD 5049-1, Obligatory Service

Minor point... it seems like you've overlooked a couple of key sections of the "Conscientious Objection" rules. The first reference you provided clearly states:

A CF member may request voluntary release on the basis of conscientious objection if the CF member has a sincerely held objection to participation in:

* war or armed conflict in general; or

* the bearing and use of arms as a requirement of service in the CF.

An objection based primarily on one or more of the following does not permit voluntary release on the basis of a conscientious objection:

* participation or use of arms in a particular conflict or operation;

* national policy;

* personal expediency; or

* political beliefs.

Notice the parts that I have indicated in bold.

If those rules were applied to U.S. soldiers, they would have to illustrate that they are unwilling to fight in any and all wars. Refusal to participate in Iraq (regardless of what they think are "valid" reasons) would not classify them as "conscientious objectors" because the rule specifies that they cannot be released because they refuse to participate in a particular conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself, I think the lies the US government told to justify the Iraq war constitute a break of good faith and this contingency should void the contractual obligations of the people that were sent there. I don't know if there are any clauses that spell out what should happen if something like this occurs but there should be.

Speaking of conscientious objectors, I wonder why this so called code of honour that soldiers cleave to didn't cause the army's high command to either resign en mass or arrest their Supreme Commander when it became obvious he'd lied through his teeth? Don't commanders have any responsibility to protect their troops not to mention their country that sometimes transcends their orders?

Perhaps we need some sort of system that double checks the reasons to launch a conventional invasion just like when a order to fire nuclear weapons is given.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...