War Resisters Day of Action
“Canada should be welcoming Americans who flee to our country to escape Bush’s illegal war in Iraq,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “In accordance with a motion passed by the House of Commons Citizenship and Immigration Committee, conscientious objectors and their immediate family members should be granted refuge in Canada.”
GPC Press Release, May 23, 2008
Hear! Hear!
One of the six fundamental Green principles is non-violence: “We declare our commitment to non-violence and strive for a culture of peace and cooperation between states.”
Parliament votes tomorrow on an historic motion to support U.S. Iraq War Resisters in Canada.
The War Resisters Support Campaign has declared today, June 2nd as War Resisters Day of Action. Visit www.resisters.ca for info on signing a petition and writing to your MP as well as to Immigration Minister Diane Finley. In my case, that's the same person.
The pacifist stance of the Green Party is an important reason why I’m a member. This issue touches me, personally. In 1970, I was a Vietnam War resister. Born and raised in New York State, my mother was a Canadian from Port Dover, Ontario. I was drafted to serve in the US military in September 1970. Instead, I moved to Canada and was welcomed by my Canadian relatives. It was probably the most life-changing and positive decision of my life. I was only 21.
Canada has a rich history of welcoming and providing a safe haven for war resisters. I was very proud to become a Canadian citizen. Lately, I’ve not been very proud of the performance of our federal government on issues like the Khadr case, anti-death penalty advocacy, offensive operations in Afghanistan and, now, this capitulation to US pressure to deport war resisters.
Let’s do the right thing.
- Jim Elve's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
see also...
...Howard's original http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/3008 on this (my comment immediately after)
Thanks for that link, Daryl.
Thanks for that link, Daryl. There's some good discussion on that post from last fall.
Jim Elve
Communications Chair
Haldimand-Norfolk
The views expressed here are mine alone and are not the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
The Greens are not pacifists!
Jim:
Just a suggestion to be a little more careful with your language. The Greens are not "pacifists", even though we are committed to non-violence. The distinction is significant and one we should make pains to explain in situations like this. Pacifists are opposed to self-defense; people in favour of non-violence are opposed to using force as a regular part of foreign policy.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
I take our adherence to the
I take our adherence to the principle of non-violence (i.e.our "commitment to non-violence and strive for a culture of peace and cooperation between states,") as a pacifistic stance. I did a quick look up of definitions of pacifism and while some strict definitions would be a rejection of all violence including self-defense, most definition are more broad.
Here's a sample:
Definitions of pacifism on the Web:
www.fiu.edu/~fcf/glossary.html
www.bioscience-bioethics.org/p.htm
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
Generally, though, I agree we need to mind our language p's and q's. No talk of slitting wrists or Chamberlain appeasement, either. ;)
Jim Elve
Communications Chair
Haldimand-Norfolk
The views expressed here are mine alone and are not the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
Non violence / pacifism / war
Joschka Fisher's support for the war/bombing of Serbia to help bring the Balkan conflict under control is probably the definitive real world test case.
He was Germany's foreign minister at the time and highest ranking Green in any government. Some greens, inside and outside of Europe, called him a traitor. Others sided with the decision as being the only remaining option.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
definitive test case
The outrageous bombing of Serbia and aftermath with disinformation attached and agendas buried not very deep below the surface, you are right on in declaring this a singular case for Green study. But awareness of historical divisions among Balkan participant aggressors & aggrieved and their historical respective supporters in the rest of Europe must be appreciated before coming down on one side or another with the Fischer-led German Green result. Is this ever a case study of causes piggybacking on one another!
Yes, exactly!
Yes, this is the point exactly. The definitive difference between pacifism and a commitment to non-violence is how once deals with issues of either self-defense or defense of others. Gandhi argued that the Jews of Germany should commit mass suicide to shame the Nazis (he was writing before WWII.) In contrast, Joschka Fischer defended the war in the Balkans as an attempt to prevent genocide. (I believe that he moved heaven and earth to find some non-military option---including personal meetings with Milosovitch.)
The fact that Greens are not in favour of ending the mission in Afganistan because they fear a bloodbath if the Taliban come back seems to me an admission that we are not "pacifists"---at least in the classic sense of Gandhi and Tolstoy.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
With all due respect, Bill,
With all due respect, Bill, I think your definitive differences are not backed up by many, if not most, current dictionary definitions. If we are going to say that we support non-violence, peace and negotiation over military action and war -- as we do say when we embrace the fundamental Green principle of non-violence -- then I do not think my use of the phrase "pacifistic stance" is out of line. We may have to agree to using two different definitions.
Was Joshka Fisher a traitor to the Greens? Was his decision considered correct, in hindsight? I thank you, Daryl, for bringing him up. It spurred some further reading and I'm glad to know more about Fisher. I don't know nearly enough about the Balkan conflict to weigh in on whether he was right or wrong.
Like with every other issue, there's a spectrum of thought on what level of dedication we give to the principle of non-violence. Do we refrain even from swatting a mosquito at one extreme? Or, do we justify all out war for the sake of a future peace at the other extreme? For most of us, like Fisher, our level of commitment to non-violence is not completely black-and-white. Factors like genocide and ethnic cleansing muddy the moral waters, too.
Anyways, today's the day parliament votes on this issue. Last night, the Liberals allowed the budget to pass complete with the immigration clause. Let's see what they do today.
Jim Elve
Communications Chair
Haldimand-Norfolk
The views expressed here are mine alone and are not the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
Well if you insist---
Well if you insist, I'll make one last point and leave it there.
I am attempting to use two different words to define two very different positions that many people conflate. The value of using the term "pacifist" the way I do is that it encompases the difference between the classic "pacifism" of Gandhi, Tolstoy, Quakers, Mennonites, the US Army definition of "conscientious objector", etc; and the Greens. Whereas with your definition it would be possible to say that the Allies in WWII were "pacifists" because they were fighting in self-defense instead of wars of aggression. I just think your way of understanding the terms makes things more confusing instead of less---.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
credit...
...goes to Ard not me for mentioning the Balkan conflict & Fischer first (spelled with that 'c'). Somewhere else on this blogsite I think I commended Bill for showing Gandhi is not necessarily one's hero. (Prefer Ambedkar.) Here's re today's vote, which should pass, given Lib. comments earlier:
[from http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&DocId=3537048]
3:00 p.m.
15 heures
DEFERRED RECORDED DIVISIONS
VOTES PAR APPEL NOMINAL DIFFÉRÉS
Concurrence in Committee Reports
Adoption de rapports de comités
No. 20 — Ms. Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — Motion to concur in the Third Report (Iraq war resisters) of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
No 20 — Mme Chow (Trinity—Spadina) — Motion portant adoption du troisième rapport (opposants à la guerre en Irak) du Comité permanent de la citoyenneté et de l'immigration
Recorded division — deferred until Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(7).
Vote par appel nominal — différé jusqu'au mardi 3 juin 2008, à 15 heures, conformément à l'article 45(7) du Règlement.
Length of bells — 15 minutes maximum.
Durée de la sonnerie d'appel — maximum de 15 minutes.
..................................
voting on:
[from http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=222011]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES
OTTAWA, CANADA
39th Parliament, 2nd Session
39e Législature, 2e Session
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has the honour to present its
THIRD REPORT
Le Comité permanent de la citoyenneté et de l'immigration a l’honneur de présenter son
TROISIÈME RAPPORT
In accordance with its mandate pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your Committee has considered the issue of Iraq war resisters.
The Committee recommends that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.
Conformément au mandat que lui confère l’article 108(2) du Règlement, votre Comité a examiné la question des opposants à la guerre en Irak.
Le Comité recommande que le gouvernement crée immédiatement un programme permettant aux objecteurs de conscience qui refusent le service militaire ou qui ont quitté l’armée pour ne pas participer à une guerre non approuvée par les Nations Unies, et qui n’ont ni dossier criminel et à leur famille immédiate (conjoint et dépendants), de demander le statut de résident permanent et de demeurer au Canada, et que le gouvernement cesse immédiatement toute action de renvoi ou d’expulsion déjà entreprise contre ces objecteurs.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos. 6 and 7) is tabled.
Un exemplaire des Procès-verbaux pertinents (séances nos 6 et 7) est déposé.
Respectfully submitted,
Respectueusement soumis,
Le président,
NORMAN DOYLE
Chair
Dissenting Opinion of the Conservative Party of Canada
Opinion dissidente du Parti conservateur du Canada
Canada is in full compliance with its international commitments and obligations, by affording all foreign nationals, including American war resisters, the opportunity to make a refugee protection claim, and have it adjudicated by an independent tribunal. The creation of a special program is therefore not required and is at odds with our belief that each immigration applicant should be treated fairly and equally, where all are required to apply for permanent residence through normal immigration channels.
Le Canada respecte entièrement ses obligations et ses engagements internationaux en offrant à tous les étrangers, y compris aux résistants à la guerre américains, la possibilité de demander l’asile et de voir leur demande tranchée par un tribunal indépendant. La création d’un programme spécial n’est donc pas requise et est contraire à notre croyance selon laquelle tous les demandeurs d’immigration devraient être traités de manière juste et équitable, et être tenus de présenter une demande de résidence permanente par les voies d’immigration normales
Submitted by:
Présenté par :
Ed Komarnicki
David Batters
Nina Grewal
Bradley R. Trost
Oops...
Thanks, Ard, for bring up Fischer. Thanks, Daryl, my mistake and my incorrect spelling, too.
Jim Elve
Communications Chair
Haldimand-Norfolk
The views expressed here are mine alone and are not the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
I agree that using a less
I agree that using a less than black-and-white definition makes things more confusing. I just don't agree on using that strict definition. I hadn't really considered that there would be much disagreement between our statement of adherence to the fundamental principle of non-violence, as defined here on this site and the more commonly accepted definitions of pacifism.
I used the word as defined by Wikipedia: "Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, to absolute opposition to the use of violence, or even force, under any circumstances."
As I understand it, you do not accept that definition and are uncomfortable using the term except as defined by Princeton: "the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable; the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration"
I take some issue with the idea that my definition would label the WWII Allies pacifists. Among the ranks of the Allied military, conscientious objectors were recognized as such and given the opportunity to serve in a non-violent way -- like as an ambulance driver or medic.
When the US draft ended, I suspect the idea of conscientious objection was sort of retired. The argument would be, "Why join a volunteer army if you are opposed to war?" The current issue with the deserters challenges that idea. As I understand the positions of most current war resisters, they were misled into signing a contract and forced to participate in what many, including Elizabeth May, consider to be an illegal war.
Anyways, Bill, point taken on usage of the term "pacifism." I'll be more careful and use "non-violence" more often and "pacifism" less often, now that I see it could be controversial.
Jim Elve
Communications Chair
Haldimand-Norfolk
The views expressed here are mine alone and are not the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.