"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."

- Pierre Trudeau (in reference to the war in Vietnam)

"[the] Iraq war has been immensely unpopular in Canada, and the leaders of the Bloc Quebecois and the left-leaning New Democratic Party have both come out in support of the resolution. But Canadian M.P.’s tend to vote with far more party discipline than their American counterparts, and Stéphane Dion, the head of the Liberal Party, has not yet taken a public stance on the bill. Without his support, its fate is uncertain."

Ok, WELL, the pacifist thing is a hard one to sustain, there was a breakaway sect named Sons of Freedom who engaged in mass nudity, arson and bombing. (those were the fun Doukhobors)


An Image from 1914 Nude protest.

Simon Fraser University has a great on-line archive of photos and documents of Doukhobor history

Oh right, and then there was the mysterious death of their leader Peter Verigin in 1924.




Ok they meant well. Nice motto. (I grew up near Verigin, Saskatchewan and my own hometown museum was full of gorgeously insane panoramic photos of the Doukhobor settlement life in Saskatchewan that included women pulling plows - which always got my attention)





- L.M. 3-31-2008 8:54 am

If any of those hot draft dodgers need comfort-wives while in Canada I am available!
- Andrew Harwood (guest) 3-31-2008 9:26 am

i am more of a pacifist then i am anything, but watching Rendition last night (weird movie, almost like a fever dream, no sensible plot and the story told almost in absences), but i kept wondering--what happened to the bomb throwers that stayed in America and shook shit up--the black panthers, and the weather people, and the like. it wasn't the best strategy, but it has to be more effective then what ever the left is doing now. (the debates, the fights, the protests, the awol dudes, the winter soilders, the films, the high art and the country songs all seem so transparently an attempt at a Vietnam redux, the hawks fighting to finally win a war, and the left having no effective strategy and convinced that their hippie bullshit won in the early 70s) (the difference i think is one of internalization--the photos of my lai were taken as an attempt towards witness, and the photos of abu gharib were taken, it seems (and if we believe errol morris, it has been said) because people my age and younger just shoot, recklessly, endlessly.

thanks for this post lorna


- anthony (guest) 3-31-2008 9:36 am

But, Andrew, would you wear a babushka and pull a plow for them?
- L.M. 3-31-2008 9:36 am

Promiscuous image making, that rings true, Anthony. (yet I don't mind)

Chris Hedges' Conscientious Objection.
- L.M. 3-31-2008 9:45 am

yes, thank you for posting this, L.M.! I am worrying about Guantanamo. How can this be still going on? I venture that the first years of the 21st century are a darker blot on the USA than the McCarthy era. I might be somewhat reassured if Canadian leaders would indicate that this country has a different agenda.
- sally mckay 3-31-2008 8:30 pm

I suspect that deep down inside they don't. Or that we are so financially tied up with the US that the public dissent from U.S. led foreign policy that our leaders displayed in the 60's and 70's will not happen now. What the hell is keeping Dion from aligning himself with traditional liberal policies? Is he worried that, if we give refugee status to a couple hundred war resisters (only 20 have formerly applied), the US won't buy oil from Alberta?
- L.M. 3-31-2008 8:54 pm

There is a really good movie on the Weather Underground, called I believe, Weather Underground, with interviews of various group members in the 90s reflecting on their actions in the 60s and 70s. What was most chilling and fascinating was their explanation of how through their increasing involvement in anti-war protest, they were eventually able to rationalize harming (and potentially killing) civilians as being acceptable.

There is also a good article in the most recent New Yorker on the woman who took the photos at the prisons in Abu Ghraib.
- C.R. (guest) 3-31-2008 9:08 pm

CR, that was the article i was qouting, it was written by Errol Morris, who's new book is about this sort of thing. Dion is a wet lump, not even useful for the things that most wet lumps are useful for.
- anthony (guest) 4-01-2008 12:30 am

Let's not conflate draft dodgers and deserters. The former is a citizen fleeing government coercion, the latter is a volunteer with second thoughts.

I think it's telling that the deserters in the video mention that they joined up "after 9-11", as if we should understand both their thirst for violent revenge AND their later regret that that revenge was happening in the wrong place. Would they still be in the Army if they were fighting Taliban in Afghanistan instead of Madhi Army in Iraq? Is their real regret simply that they were killing the wrong people?




- neilson133 (guest) 4-01-2008 11:02 pm

Good points, those are fair distinctions, and I certainly don't confuse either with real pacifism which requires a true belief in and practise of non-violence. I admire that and I would never assume that I would be easily capable of it. Just because I don't hit anyone doesn't make me non-violent. (or I should say that I've never really been tested, and as with all tests that I've never had to take, I always safely assume that I'd fail)

It's likely that you are correct, many regret that they are killing the wrong people. What may be even more likely is that they found out what war really is. Either way I still want my government to extend refugee status to military deserters. (and for the record, I'm against our current combat role in Afghanistan)

- L.M. 4-01-2008 11:49 pm

But the deserters aren't refugees, they're fugitives. A refugee is on the run from circumstances beyond their control; a fugitive is on the run from the consequences of their actions.

If we extend refugee status to the deserters, should we also extend it to former criminal gang members who wake up late to the fact that the gang they joined isn't a neighbourhood fraternity, but instead a vicious anti-social enterprise?

Of course not. Because our society values personal responsibility, we believe an adult should know better than to join a criminal gang, no matter what social pressure they face or monetary reward they expect. Why then would we make an exception for people who willingly, knowingly and with full understanding of their decision joined the most violent, lethal organization on Earth?

For the record, I think Canada should drag its feet and let them stay, but quietly, off-the-record, and with zero official recognition or support.
(I also support our combat role in Afghanistan and our troops there fighting. I'm grateful they're being tested instead of me).

p.s. love the blog, and promise to talk about art next time!
- neilson133 (guest) 4-02-2008 7:08 am

Delighted to have you visit, and don't worry, we rarely talk about art, we just like the pictures.

There are a few problems with the argument you're making. The big one being that you would equate an American military deserter with a former criminal gang member. I'm not clear if you mean to say that you believe that the U.S. military is a criminal organization because further in your comment you cite your support for the Canadian troops, I'll agree we're not as lethal, but combat is combat and that's common to all militaries.

You will probably also find a lot of other arguments against your assertion that a volunteer force means that everyone joined up with the full knowledge of all the consequences. Aside from the numerous reportage on deceptive recruitment practises, I think that most veterans of any war that are alive today would say that the actual experience is unlike anything they could have ever imagined. Even some of those old darlings from WW2 will still weep and express very complicated, even bitter, emotions over the experience, and that's with everyone telling them they fought the good fight. (Many of them knew that the good fight should not have included carpet bombing of civilian centers.)

If your opinions of the current issues are based on the belief that the Vietnam era resistors were just draft dodgers, there might be less of a problem with the position you've taken, but Canada did give refuge to military deserters as well during that period. I'm not so sure you can hinge a persuasive argument on the fact that there is no longer a draft in the U.S.

The distinction that was made in the recommendations before Parliament was that refuge could be given to those “who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations” True, these individual soldiers are/were participants but they didn't start it, their government did.

- L.M. 4-02-2008 8:14 am

Last one, I swear!

I'm not the one equating the U.S. military with a criminal organization; the deserters and their supporters are. According to them, the illegality – the criminality – of the war in Iraq is the primary justification for their desertion and flight to Canada (www.resisters.ca is full of appeals to the law, citing everything from "many legal opinions" to the Nuremburg Tribunal to indict U.S. policy and its instrument, the U.S. military). I simply followed through with this logic. As they say on Law & Order: you opened this door, counselor.

I agree wholeheartedly that no one can truly know war from a distance, and that knowing it up close is a uniquely profound human experience. That’s why I sympathize with the deserters. But remember that for every person who, upon seeing war first-hand, discovers they are repulsed and cannot continue, there is someone else for whom war is the single greatest thing that ever happened to them (I'll see your Chris Hedges and raise you a Joanna Bourke). Any portrayal of the veterans' experience that doesn't account for this is dishonest.

I also don't believe anyone today is tricked into joining the Army, numerous reportage of deceptive recruitment notwithstanding. Even if the recruiter straight-up lied to your face, said you'd never see combat and you joined up under the impression that all you were in for was a bit of exercise and money for college, boot camp is guaranteed to correct you. There you learn to shoot rifles, throw grenades and stab a bayonet into someone’s guts, whether you’re an accounting clerk, truck mechanic or computer technician. There is no way anyone goes through boot camp thinking they’re in the Peace Corps, and anyone who does is given ample opportunity to raise their hand and quit. I think this makes the fact that there is no draft in America a very persuasive argument that this issue is primarily one of personal responsibility, not government coercion.

Or malpractice.What does it even mean to say "they didn't start it, their government did"? What's "the government" except the expression of our collective will? Isn't that why we believe in democracy? If we're no longer going to respect abstract concepts like honour, loyalty, duty and sacrifice (which on the battlefield are not abstract at all), I don't think we should get to assign blame to something as unreal as "the government".




- neilson133 (guest) 4-03-2008 6:48 am

I always thought the 'recruiter tricked me' argument, as a lone justification, was a bit thin too but I thought I'd try it on you anyway.

It's late, so for now from refusingtokill.net some statements & background on the military deserters who were involved in the case that the Supreme Court declined to hear.

Brandon Huey:

Hughey volunteered for the Army to get money for college. He graduated from high school in San Angelo, Texas, just two months after the president declared war in Iraq.

What did he think about the case for going to war? "I felt it was necessary if they did have these weapons, and they could end up in our cities and threaten our safety," says Hughey. "I was supportive. At first, I didn't think to question it."

He says at first, he was willing to die "to make America safe." And while Hughey was in basic training, he didn't get much news. But when he left basic training, he started following the latest information from Iraq.

"I found out, basically, that they found no weapons of mass destruction. They were beginning to come out and say it's not likely that we will find any - and the claim that they made about ties to al Qaeda was coming up short, to say the least," says Hughey. "It made me angry, because I felt our lives were being thrown away as soldiers, basically."

When Hughey got orders for Iraq, he searched the Internet and found Vietnam era war resisters willing to show him the way north. In fact, they were willing to drive him there, and a Canadian television news camera went along.

Hughey had an invitation to stay with a Quaker couple that helped Americans avoid the draft during Vietnam. From Fort Hood, Texas, to St. Catherine's in Ontario, Canada, Hughey crossed the border, duty free.

Pelley read letters about Hughey's desertion that were sent to the editor of a San Antonio newspaper.

"It makes me sad to know that there's that much hate in the country," says Hughey. "Before I joined the Army, I would have thought the same way. Anyone who said no to a war, I would have thought them a traitor and a coward. So, in that essence, I'm thankful for this experience, because it has opened my eyes and it has taught me not to take things on the surface."

However, he adds: "I have to say that my image of my country always being the good guy, and always fighting for just causes, has been shattered."

He joined the military in Jan. 2001, and was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne.

He wanted a career in the military, but over time, he decided he couldn’ t take a life. "I was walking to chow hall with my unit, and we were yelling, 'Train to kill, kill we will,' over and over again," recalls Hinzman. "I kind of snuck a peek around me and saw all my colleagues getting red in the face and hoarse yelling - and at that point a light went off in my head and I said, 'You know, I made the wrong career decision.'"

But Hinzman said he didn’t want to get out of the Army: "I had signed a contract for four years. I was totally willing to fulfill it. Just not in combat arms jobs."

While at Fort Bragg, Hinzman says he filled out the forms for conscientious objector status, which would let him stay in the Army in a non-combat job.

While he waited for a decision, he went to Afghanistan and worked in a kitchen. But later, the Army told him he didn’t qualify as a conscientious objector, and he was ordered to fight in Iraq.

Hinzman decided to take his family to Canada, where he’s been living off savings accumulated while he was in the military.

Wasn't he supposed to follow orders? "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it," says Hinzman. "And I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do."

"But you can't have an Army of free-thinkers," says Pelley. "You wouldn't have an Army."

"No, you wouldn't. I think there are times when militaries or countries act in a collectively wrong way," says Hinzman. "I mean, the obvious example was during World War II. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy. I mean, he ranks up there with the bad ones. But was he a threat to the United States?

Still, isn't it worth fighting to free the people of Iraq? "Whether a country lives under freedom or tyranny or whatever else, that's the collective responsibility of the people of that country," says Hinzman.

"People should have a right to say, 'I'm not fighting in that war. That's an illegal war. There's illegal stuff going on the ground. I'm not going,'" says House. "And anyone who says soldiers should go to jail if they don't fight in an illegal war is persecuting them."

And it’s something House has experience with. In 1969, he graduated from the University of Wisconsin, got drafted, and spent the rest of his life in Canada.

House's legal strategy will focus on his contention that President Bush is not complying with international law. But how will he defend volunteers who signed a contract?

"The United States is supposed to comply with treaty obligations like the U.N. charter, but they don’t," says House. "When the president isn’t complying with the Geneva Accords or with the U.N. charter, are we saying, 'Only the soldier who signed up when he was 17 - that guy has to strictly comply with contract? The president, he doesn’t have to?' I don’t think so. I don’t think that is fair."