According to the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration a person seeking either asylum or refugee status in Canada qualifies under one of two provisions.
The first: A Convention refugee (refers to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.) is someone seeking to enter Canada "who is outside of their country of nationality or habitual residence and who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership in a particular social group."
The second: Person In Need Of Protection, is a person: "in Canada whose removal to their country of nationality or former habitual residence would subject them to the possibility of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."
It is up to the applicant in both instances to offer sufficient proof to the Refugee Board that any of the above conditions would apply to them if they had to return to their country of origin. There are, of course, provisos to these clauses to prevent their abuse. Canada, much to the surprise of certain American talk show hosts, doesn't want to find itself a haven for terrorists fleeing "persecution", will not grant such status to those "determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, human rights violations, serious criminality or organized criminality."
Unfortunately, there are a lot of gray areas in this whole situation. Obviously some of the above definitions, especially security and criminality, will depend on the claimant's country of origin. If the country is one that denies its citizens basic liberties, and the person applying for shelter is in opposition, any records obtained from their home country would show them as a criminal and security threat.
Would Canada allow in someone who had actively participated in violent acts against that government? Or would we only allow those who through no fault of their own, or who through peaceful activity found themselves if peril? In most cases it would be no to the first instance and yes to the second.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Isn't refugee status supposed to be for people who are being persecuted by their government, as opposed to those like this deserter who broke a voluntary contract and are basically just criminals?
Why shouldn't murderers and child molestors apply for refugee stats in Canada on the same basis?
Dave
2 - chantal stone
good piece, gypsyman.
my husband is in the army national guard, and just returned from a 14 month tour in iraq.
i understand the perception that if you don't support the war in iraq then you are unpatriotic, but in reality, what most Americans support are the TROOPS. most people i talk to---and i'm in the mostly red state of Ohio--do not support the war, but have an overwhelming support for the troops who have little choice but to go over there and fight a war that they don't even agree with.
however, in the case you wrote about, i do agree that Mr. Hinzman should be granted refugee status. no one can truly understand what the troops over there endure unless you're in that situation.
my husband served in a leadership position, and he often said that he wouldn't want a soldier with him who did not really want to be there. you need to be able to trust those serving with you with your life. it's necessary for survival to put your whole mind in the situation you are in when placed in a war-time scenario. i would question Mr. Hinzman's ability to do so, therefore making him a detriment to those serving alongside him.
3 - Natalie Davis
Under those definitions, GLBT people - persecuted by being denied legal equality and thus being forced to suffer in the US as second-class citizens - would qualify, IMO.
4 - Dave Nalle
Certainly more so than this guy, ND. They are what they are and if they are persecuted for it then they have a valid argument. He signed a contract and volunteered for service. At that point he lost all claim of any kind to persecuted status.
Dave
5 - Joanie
I think the fact that this gentleman voluntarily entered into the service, he signed an agreement to honor the contract with the government, and he then demonstrated his unwillingness to follow through are enough to cause him problems without any politicalization of his actions.
Let's face it, when anyone takes a job of ANY sort, there are specific guidelines they must follow. When they refuse to honor their commitment - especially if it's a non-disclosure agreement or refusal to serve during war, they are subject to prosecution by their employer. Any stigma after that prosecution is another consequence of their actions, not the employer's.
When someone joins the military, they are asked about whether or not they feel they can serve during war. That's when they're supposed to declare their conscientious objector status. To do so later is to come across looking foolish and opportunistic.
Basically, Hinzman wanted a paycheck, healthcare, and funds for an education, but didn't want to uphold his end of the agreement. That doesn't look good on any level.
He knew full well what would happen if he chose to go this route. There have been plenty of cases before his and the precedence has been set. Take Pablo Paredes, for instance. He stuck around and took his punishment. I don't give Paredes much credit for anything else, but at least he managed that. Hinzman can't even stand behind his convictions enough to take his lumps? Puhleeze!
6 - Dave Nalle
He didn't just volunteer to join the Army, he subsequently also sought out and received admission to the Airborne service, which pretty much guaranteed combat deployment.
As for the reaction against him, some have painted it as vengeful on the part of the American public or as part of a pro-war attitude. It seems to me that it's more a case of Americans not liking to see one guy trying to weasel out of an agreement that thousands of others have honored at risk to their lives. The problem here is that we don't like cheats.
Dave
7 - Natalie Davis
I'd agree with that. A person's conscience and integrity can move them to quit the brigade, which is respect-worthy IMO, but to claim persecution when one chose to enlist is a quite different thing.
8 - chantal stone
Dave, Joanie, you both make excellent points, he DID sign a contract and should be held accountable for it, but there are some benefits of serving in iraq, and do we really want him to get paid VERY WELL, all tax-free, if he's only going to do a half-ass job over there, kicking and screaming, whining and complaining the whole time? his unit will probably be better off without him.
9 - Justin Berry
This clown needs refugee status. I hope that they give it to him. I dont want him back in my country. His actions are disgraceful in any country or culture.
10 - gypsyman
Dave and Joanie, I admidt to being stumped by his claims to concientious objectin when he volunteered to serve in the army. It's not as if he were an unwilling participant.
Whether he is in the class as common criminals is up to what our justice system thinks about his claim as to the validity of the war, and whether he will be able to obtain a fair trial when returned to the U.S. Those are highly objective arguements which will depend on your view of the whole situation I would think.
There are too many people siding with him up here just because they don't agree with the war on a personal level, and are not paying attention to the legality of the situation.
I did not know that you had to make seperate application to join an airborne regiment, that certainly devalues his con.objection arguement.
Emotionaly I support him in wanting to stay here because I'm against the war, but legally I have serious doubts of the merits in his case. My arguemnet that the public perceptions of him following his incarceration are fairely tenuous at best. I don't think any Canadian judge is going to make a decision on the legality of the war, it's slightly out of their jurisdiction.
Even if he wins this appeal, all it means is the refugee board will have to rehear his case. They can still turn him down if he can not present sufficient evidence that he faces persecution.
Natalie: I don't know if and gay and lesbian people have attempte to seek refugee status here. The time to do so would have been before the last election though.Or to wait for the next one. This government will do its best to turn back the clock on what previous ones have accomplished.
gypsyman
11 - chantal stone
from my own experience, i've seen the Army waste a lot of time and resources trying to keep soldiers who clearly did not want to serve anymore--for various reasons.....all resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.
chances are, this guy got some sort of sign-on bonus. they should make him pay it all back, including all benefits he may have received, and let him go. it's not worth the effort of fighting to keep him around.
12 - Dave Nalle
One thing you didn't mention in your article is that he became a CO after he was in the service for more than a year based on having attended Quaker meetings and supposedly converting to their brand of pacifism. Whether that was his real motivation or a convenient pretext is debatable.
As for GLBT people seeking refuge in Canada, I think ND made that primarily as a rhetorical point. They certainly aren't persecuted here in the US to a degree where refugee status would make any sense. Being denied gay marriage is about the only grounds they could use, and since it's not legal in 90% of the countries in the world that's not going to fly.
Dave
13 - Justin Berry
I would be glad to see him repay all monies that he recieved, all benefits, and repay us, the American taxpayer, the money that we wasted on training his sorry ass. Then he can go to Canada free and clear.
Short of that bring him back and put him in prison.
14 - Dave Nalle
He certainly ought to repay all the speakers fees he's gotten for addressing anti-war groups in Canada.
Dave
15 - MCH
Yes, and perhaps we can get ol' GW Bush to repay us that $1 million he wasted on his training (prior to deserting) by skipping his physical and purposely grounding himself.
With interest, what would that be now...$15-20 million...?
16 - Justin Berry
I am all for that MCH do you think anyone could prove it?
17 - SFC SKI
IMO, the guy voluntarily signed up in the armed forces, he should have realized the possibility of serving in combat.
His leaving his pplace of duty left a hole in his unit, his absence means someone else has to pick up his slack. His absence means someone's back is not being watched, and that could mean someone dies in combat.
He wasn't drafted, he made his choices, let him face the consequences.
18 - capital punishment
In Canada if he deserted or refused to follow orders during war time he could still legally be shot... called treason...
19 - Freedom Now
I disagree with what the insurgents are doing in Iraq, but I am patriotic enough to support them...
20 - larry
fleeing prosecution or persecution there is a difference. i thought canada learned a lesson with vietnam. that era sent many drafter dodgers to canada. what was realised that the men "fleeing " to canada were not exactly model citizens. i have read that canada accepts all countries except u.s. for sancuary. some people still complaining about Pres.bush and his military service. Sen Kerry still ha egg on his face from that one.
21 - Timmers
He signs up with the american armed forces, one of the larger militaries in the world and one that see regular combat, and then deceides that some wars aren't faught with everyones best intentions in mind. Now he wants to live in Canada just to save his own neck. This guy sounds like the type of person i want living in my country! The guy knew or should have known what he was getting into, ship him back to the states stamped "return to sender"
22 - bazooka joe
all i can say is: "WHAT AN IDIOT!!!" that guy should face the consequences... He volunteered to be in the army. Then volunteered again to be on the airborne. This guy volunteered TWICE then now he wants to run away?? what a wacko?!
23 - hounddog
#9
Justin Berry
I am a canadian, and proud of it, although I live in europe, but I am sometimes ashamed what type of trash my country lets in and supports, I hope you get him back and all others like him, even if you don't want him, let him screw up your taxsystem, not ours, he'll be an opportunist anywhere in the world
#18
capital punishment
good, there is something positive in our legal system
#19
Freedom Now
poor patriot, it won't help much, most of them will die, by the hands of other iraqui
#21
Timmers
I agree ++++
#22
bazooka joe
yep, there are cowards all over the world, but why do we have to always get them after they show their real spots, joe, please take him back
24 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I do not see what the big poblem is here. There is no draft in the States. Had I faced the draft when I was a teenager, during the Vietnam War, I wouldn't have fled to Canada, I would have come here.
But there is no draft in the States now. Your basic job as a soldier is to defend your country. You do not get to pick what that "defense" means. That is for the political echelon to do. As an American soldier, you sign up, sign a contract and hope for the best. If this guy didn't want to be a soldier, he shouldn't have signed up. Period.
25 - hounddog
did we get ridd of him, is he back in the states