GI Loses First Round in Canada Asylum Bid

GI Loses First Round in Canada Asylum Bid

GI Loses First Round in Canada Asylum Bid

Jeremy Hinzman fled north rather than be deployed in a war he regards as a “criminal enterprise.”


The day after Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin lunched with President George Bush at his Texas ranch, Canada’s Immigration Review Board (IRB) announced its rejection of a bid for asylum by Jeremy Hinzman, the US Army soldier who fled north in January 2004 rather than be deployed in a war he regards as a “criminal enterprise.” Hinzman is the first of an estimated ten GIs currently seeking refugee status in Canada to have his case heard. (Hinzman’s attorney, Jeffry House, who is representing eight of the claimants, says he has been called by about fifty soldiers considering filing such applications.)

The March 24 ruling asserted that Hinzman did not qualify as a refugee because he would not face persecution if returned to the United States. Doing time for desertion “does not amount to a violation of a fundamental human right, and the harm is not serious,” IRB member Brian Goodman wrote in the judgment.

That conclusion may be disappointing, both Hinzman and House note, but it was not unexpected, given that Goodman did not allow them to argue that the war itself is illegal. Punishing someone for refusing to participate in such a war would certainly amount to persecution, House says.

Goodman’s decision also charged that Hinzman’s moral opposition to the war was not convincing because he was willing to complete his contract with the military in a noncombat role. “There are degrees of complicity,” Hinzman responds. “Anyone who pays taxes is complicit. But it’s really another thing altogether to pull a trigger. Not to recognize that is just myopic.”

Planning to appeal, Hinzman adds that precedent-setting cases–such as one involving a Russian who was granted refugee status after fleeing military service in Chechnya–were won on appeals.

As for Martin’s hoedown with Bush, Hinzman doesn’t think his case was discussed. “I don’t have any feelings of grandiosity,” he says. “We’re small fish.” Still, Canada’s Liberal Party is largely acquiescent in relation to Washington these days as it tries to protect its beef and lumber industries, and House finds Goodman’s decision excessively “deferential” to the United States. On the other hand, Canada’s refusal to participate in Bush’s missile defense shield bodes well, especially if Hinzman’s case eventually moves out of the courts to a direct request for permission from the government to remain in Canada on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. “Canada can stand up for principle if there’s popular pressure,” says House, adding, “in Canada, the war is very unpopular.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy