The Immigration and Refugee Board was wrong when it decided that an American deserter couldn't claim refugee status in Canada because the military transgressions he was evading weren't severe enough to be war crimes or crimes against humanity, the Federal Court ruled Friday.

The judgment lowers one of the bars that the recent wave of American deserters need to clear when they seek asylum in Canada.

It said that dodging orders that are “contrary to the basic rules or norms of human conduct” is enough grounds to apply for refugee protection.

“Military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates either combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is the proven reason for refusing to serve,” wrote Mr. Justice Robert Barnes, who is also a court-martial appellate judge.

 

American army deserter Joshua Key is shown outside court in Toronto in April. The Federal Court has ordered Canada's refugee board to take another look at an American deserter's failed refugee claim. (Colin Perkel/The Canadian Press)

 

However, the ruling didn't address another legal hurdle faced by American deserters: proving that they'll face undue hardship if sent back to the United States.

Instead, Judge Barnes ordered the IRB to re-examine the application of Joshua Key, a former private who deserted in 2003 while on a two-week leave from his unit in Iraq.

“Mr. Key did not have the opportunity to present a meaningful case on that issue [of military punishment],” Judge Barnes wrote.

The ruling is one of the first in favour of U.S. soldiers who fled to Canada, following the failure last year of deserters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey to persuade Canadian courts that they would be unfairly treated if they are court-martialed in the United States.

“While the Hinzman decision has certainly set the bar very high for deserters from the United States military,” Judge Barnes wrote, it would still be possible for a deserter to prove he had tried all avenues to evade overseas duty or unfair punishment in the United States.

Having deserted while he was on furlough, “Private Key would have been deployed back to Iraq within two weeks of his arrival in the United States, the opportunity to pursue a release or re-assignment may not have been realistic,” Judge Barnes wrote.

Mr. Key had told the IRB that while in Iraq with a unit of combat engineers, he took part in at least 70 raids on civilian homes. The IRB found that the actions Mr. Key witnessed had “a disturbing level of brutality” but weren't war crimes involving deportation, slave labour or civilian hostage-taking, or crimes against humanity, with systematic use of torture and murder against civilians.

“In my view, the Board erred in … concluding that refugee protection for military deserters and evaders is only available where the conduct objected to amounts to a war crime, a crime against peace or a crime against humanity,” Judge Barnes wrote in Friday's ruling.

Mr. Key, who is living in Saskatchewan with his wife and their four children, was happy with the decision. “He thought it was a good Fourth of July present to him,” said his lawyer, Jeffry House.

Mr. House said Friday's ruling would apply to deserters who had already seen service in Iraq, not those who deserted before they were shipped overseas.

Source

Commentary in the Globe and Mail

Ottawa Mens Centre.com, from Ottawa, Canada wrote: Justice Barnes knows the IRB makes Political Decisions, not legal decisions. The IRB places a "reverse onus" on anyone making any claim, that is, it asks US draft dodgers to prove that they will suffer harm in the US. Its like Sharia law asking a Muslim woman to come up with four witnesses to support an allegation of rape. Justice Barnes is now asking the IRB to reexamine the matter in light of his statements.
Before we hold out any hope that the IRB will "change their mind" or more to the point that "their political direction will change" we need to understand that Canada is fundamentally a Corrupt Legal Society with a fundamental hatred towards men.

Judges in Canadian Courts don't wear Swastika Armbands indicating belief in Racial Purity, they do however have a systematic bias and hatred towards men that frequently assumes "gender purity and that men are human trash to be disposed of.

Let's apply a reasonable burden of reverse onus upon our Judiciary.

Are Canadian judges subject to personality or psychological screening prior to appointment to the bench? NO, Do Canadian soldiers, airman or police officers? Generally yes, then why no judges?

The fact is if you dont have such screening, then Canada will continue to have its judiciary corrupted by a substantial number of Judges who have unreasonable unfounded beliefs in not only the superiority of females but that males in Canada do not deserve legal rights.

For example, Ottawa Family Court has several examples, two of the worst examples are;

The Dishonourable Dennis Power and
The Dishonourable Allan Sheffield
are famous for making draconian decisions against Canadian Men in Family Court by "striking pleadings", orders declaring fathers vexatious litigants or issuing security for costs or issuing restraining orders banishing fathers from entire cities or issuing orders that are effectively deportation orders.
www.OttawaMensCentre.com

• Posted 05/07/08 at 6:51 AM EDT

 

Source

Canadian Judges regard men as human trash undeserving of legal rights. Canada's Judiciary is riddled with Man Hating Judges with personality or psychological problems who have spent their entire careers prior to appointment in hiding their personality problems.

What is not hidden is the Judiciary's hatred towards men. It begs the question, in light of Canadian Judges history of making "political decisions" rather than legal decisions, just what hope does a US deserter really have?

Take it one step further. Could you imagine ANY Canadian judge relieving a US deserter from paying child support according to his former US military income while unable to work in Canada?

Lets look at the facts. Canadian Judges apply an "illegal burden of proof against men", that means, it frequently does not matter WHAT the evidence is, decisions come down against men so often in family court and more to the point, decisions in favour of men are extremely rare.

Look at any set of issues in the Ontario Court of Appeal. The odds of a man being successful on any Family Court issue is remote.
IF a man is successful on "an issue" the same judges in most cases, fill the decision with a "poison pill" by making costs orders against men. These costs orders frequently "end the litigation".

Take the issue of Spousal Support. Every Family Lawyer in Canada knows the odds of a man receiving "spousal support" from a woman, is "entirely remote" and the data from Statistics Canada shows that increasingly many men are full time child care providers while their female wives earn the higher incomes.

It begs the question, WHY. The ONLY answer is Canadian Judges have a PATHOLOGICAL HATRED towards men.

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a SICK JOKE. Never has a self represented male litigant ever had a successful case in the Supreme Court. Its almost as bad at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

www.OttawaMensCentre.com

If Justice Barns was a Republican member, would it be reasonable to assume the apprehension of bias?

Canadian Legal Decisions show a historic hatred towards men. All too frequently, impossible burdens of proof are applied towards men while accepting any quadruple hearsay allegations of a woman as fact.

It runs like this. All a woman has to say is "I'm afraid of him" and REGARDLESS of the evidence, Canadian judges like the Dishonourable Dennis Power will issue restraining orders literally banishing a father from an entire city, not for any threats of violence but to "end the litigation" to act as an illegal appeal court decision on a brother judges decision that he does not like.

Canadian Judges are abusing their judicial power by issuing draconian orders against any Male who makes public statements about judges.

Take one well known insult to Justice in Ontario, Justice Richard Lajoie who has recently joined the gang of male haters in Ottawa, formerly of Timmins Ontario. He did not like being referred to as "an insult to justice" so he had a father seeking access to his child in family court arrested and thrown in jail on a trumped up charge of Criminal Defamation. That's right, he also decided to "hear the matter" in his own court and after the father was released on bail a week later, Justice Lajoie refused to be a witness.

Ontario Judges are using their positions of power to issue draconian orders virtually deportation orders against Canadian Citizens, simply because they are male and because they dared to make public the details of their well known War on Men.

The fact is, the hatred towards men literally oozes out of the court room walls. Its means Canada does not have the Rule of Law and if you want to destroy society what better way is there to do it than treat half the population as human trash without legal rights.

Of course Canadian Judges pay "lip service" or "put on a veneer', or "wear judicial robes" while acting as female gender extremists.

• Posted 05/07/08 at 7:41 AM EDT

• Posted 05/07/08 at 7:52 AM EDT