Musings

The following are position papers from First United.

Press Statement  (dated October19, 2009)

We confirm that Rodney Watson is presently in the building at First United Church.

He came into this building on the evening of Friday September 18^th and has joined about 150 other people who at this time use this building as a place of refuge while they and we work towards addressing some of the challenges that confront them.

We expect that the Authorities will continue to respect Churches and Temples as places of refuge and Sanctuary – as it has at First United Church in past months and years, and as it has specifically in the case of refugee claimants (currently at the First Lutheran Church and recently at the Surrey Guru Nanak Sikh Temple

We believe there is significant justification for welcoming Rodney who has sought sanctuary here, based on our faith and our history as a community. First United Church remains committed to and respectful of the due process of the law even as we seek to be true to our calling to uphold justice and fairness in all its dimensions.

Attached are details and background to Rodney Watson’s circumstances.

In addition, the United Church of Canada’s theological position on Sanctuary, on Conscientious Objection and on the Iraq war is attached.

Ric Matthews

Minister of the Mission and Community life

____________________________________________________________

Theological rationale for providing Sanctuary to Rodney Watson

Details and background to Rodney Watson’s circumstances are attached.

In addition, the United Church of Canada’s theological position on Sanctuary, on Conscientious Objection  and on the Iraq war is attached.

In providing sanctuary for Rodney Watson, the Board of First United Church took the following into consideration:

1. Respect and support for the Law of the land

The Church has consistently respected and supported the democratically established Law and processes of Justice. However, the Christian Church has also at times embraced actions that challenge and/or obstruct the Law when a law or its implementation is deemed unjust.

In Rodney’s case, with reference to his application for refugee status:

A)      The Law allows for a process that includes opportunity for a review on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to be held after a deportation order has been issued – and it also allows for the deportation to be delayed until that hearing is held, but….
(i) Holding the Hearing after Rodney has been deported makes the process moot, since he will receive a prison sentence of at least a year and will have a criminal record that prevents re-entry into Canada
(ii) No indication has been given of a willingness to hold such a Hearing before deporting Rodney
(iii) The Hearing has been seriously prejudiced by the Minister of Immigration’s public statement that “Iraq war resisters are bogus refugee claimants”

B)      The legal process has denied Rodney refugee status despite the fact that the democratically elected Parliament of Canada has voted in 2008 and in March 2009 to allow Iraq war resisters to be given refuge in Canada, with the result that…

(i)   The intent of the Law (which, as reflected in the Parliamentary majority votes and in Canada’s history of providing refuge to Vietnam war resisters and others is clearly to offer refuge to war resisters) has been ignored or contradicted

The Board of First United considers the implementation and process of the Law as not being just – and believes it would be an injustice for him to be deported at this point. Justice requires that Rodney be given a fair hearing on Compassionate and Humanitarian grounds before being deported – and that the Hearing take into account the intent of the Law and the decisions of a democratically elected Parliament

1. Conscientious Objectors and Just Wars

The Church has over the ages been willing to accept the need for war as a last resort, carefully applying the Just War doctrine and criteria. When a war has been deemed not to meet the criteria of a Just War, the Church has opposed that war and refused to collaborate in its execution. Equally the Church has upheld (indeed often encouraged) Conscientious Objection by those who choose on the basis of conscience not to participate in a war (or to terminate their involvement in one.

In this context:

A)      The war in Iraq is considered by many to be an illegitimate war.
(i) The grounds and justifications given for declaring that war have been proved to be invalid
(ii) Canada itself chose not to participate in that war because the justification was suspect from the start

B)      The Church calls on secular society to join it in respecting the right to conscientious objection and Rodney is objecting to being sent back to a war in which he does not believe and cannot in conscience support  (In this case a war that most Canadians do not support)

C)      Secular society holds individuals personally accountable for their decisions and actions in the context of war. We cannot hold people accountable if we do not give them the opportunity to choose not to participate. Denying Rodney the right to refuse to participate by seeking refuge in Canada, contradicts this basic principle,

Justice requires that Rodney be given the opportunity to make the choice of not participating in a war that in conscience he cannot support – by being allowed as per the will of Parliament to be given refuge in Canada

1. Basic justice and solidarity with those treated unjustly

The Church has consistently stood in solidarity with those who are being treated unjustly. It has also traditionally had strong theological bases for defending the rights of workers/employees in the context of workplace/employment imbalances of power.

In Rodney’s case:

A)      There is a basic injustice in a unilateral extension of a contract (even when written into the small print of the document that has been signed by both parties. ). Rodney was not in breach of his 3-year contract in any way, when it was unilaterally extended 3 months before it was due to end.  The unilateral extension of a contract is an unfair labour practice and an abuse of power.

B)      The consequence of deporting Rodney is that an 8-month old child will be deprived of any contact with his father for at least a year – and possibly longer.

Justice requires that Rodney not be forced to continue being employed against his wishes despite having met his mutually agreed contractual obligations – and equally that he not be imprisoned for being unwilling to meet unilaterally imposed requirements

For the reasons outlined above and based on the theological principles and policies outlined in the attached documents, the Board of First United Church is providing refuge and Sanctuary for Rodney Watson.

___________________________________________________________

Background Information on the Circumstances surrounding Rodney Watson

Rodney Watson, 31, was ordered to leave Canada by Friday September 11 2009, or he will face deportation, despite two majority votes by Parliament that support allowing U.S. soldiers opposed to the Iraq war to stay in Canada.

At a press conference held on Thursday morning September 10th, organized by the War Resisters Support Campaign,  NDP_MP Bill Siksay and Liberal MP_Ujjal Dosanjh, and Vancouver and District Labour Council President Bill Saunders spoke in support of Rodney Watson and called for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney to honour the will of Parliament and to let Watson stay in Canada.

Watson, after losing his job and being desperate for income, signed up as a cook for the U.S. army in Kansas City. He was subsequently sent to Iraq for 12 months. He found himself not working as a cook but as an armed soldier securing the kitchen and mess area. Within months of his 3-year contract ending the US army unilaterally extended his contract for a further 3 years and informed him he would be sent back to Iraq. After his tour of duty ended in 2006, he fled to Vancouver to avoid being sent back for a second stint.

Watson now has a Canadian-born son, and seeks only to live in peace in his new home.

Political

In June 2008, federal MPs had agreed — by a vote of 137-110 — that U.S. soldiers who fled to Canada to escape the war in Iraq should be allowed to stay here permanently. The House of Commons again voted in favour of a similar motion on March 30 of this year.

The Conservative government ignored the non-binding votes and has pushed ahead with deportations, ordering five American war resisters back to the U.S. since 2008.

In June 2009, the Immigration Critics from all three federal opposition parties wrote to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney and reminded him that the majority of MPs had twice “voted to direct the government to immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may be commenced against Iraq war resisters and their families, and to establish a program to facilitate these war resisters requests for permanent resident status in Canada.” (A majority of Members of Parliament voted twice to allow U.S. war resisters to remain in Canada, first in June 2008, then again in March 2009). They called on Kenney to honour the will of Parliament and “not to use the Parliamentary recess to disregard the expressed will of the House of Commons with respect to the fair treatment of Iraq War resisters in Canada”.

Despite this very clear mandate, Minister Kenney and the Harper Government continue to deport Iraq War resisters. Several war resisters already have been deported to the U.S., where two have been court martialed and imprisoned.

In addition to Watson, several other war resisters in Canada live under threat of deportation, including Kimberly Rivera, Jeremy Hinzman and Patrick Hart. All are parents of young children.

In January, Minister Kenney publicly denounced U.S. war resisters as “bogus refugee claimants,” revealing the government’s blanket opposition to what is supposed to be an impartial process. The Minister’s blatantly prejudicial comments were promptly denounced by Amnesty International Canada and the Canadian Council for Refugees.

Public Support

BURNABY: New Democrat MPs Libby Davies (Vancouver East), Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster), Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior), Denise Savoie (Victoria), Jean Crowder (Nanaimo Cowichan), Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway), and Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) have urged the federal government to stop all removal action against US Iraq war resister Rodney Watson.

“Rodney Watson, like other war resisters, made a principled decision to refuse further service in the war in Iraq. He sought asylum in Canada because his position of conscience was not respected in the US. He should receive a welcome here and not be sent back to a very uncertain future,” said Siksay.

“Canada refused to participate in the war in Iraq and many Canadians believe it is an illegal war. Supporting those who take a stand against war has been a long tradition in Canada and we have often benefited from those who came here rather than participating. One need only look to the Viet Nam War era for an example of the positive outcomes of a policy that supported war resisters.”

“On two occasions a majority of Members of the House of Commons have called on the government to stop deporting war resisters and instead put in place a programme that gives them asylum and puts them on track to be permanent residents of Canada. The Conservative government should act on the will of the House”, concluded Siksay.

The Hon. Hedy Fry, MP for Vancouver Centre, also demanded that the federal government cease the deportation of U.S. Iraq War veteran and war resister Rodney Watson.

“The Harper government must stop ignoring the will of Parliament if it doesn`t meet his ideology,” said Dr. Fry. “Twice, in June 2008 and March 2009, the House of Commons voted by majority to allow U.S. war resisters to stay in Canada, and this is still a parliamentary democracy.”

Rodney Watson sought asylum in Canada in 2007 after refusing a second deployment to Iraq. Given the likelihood of court martial and imprisonment upon his return to the U.S., the Canadian government should continue its long-held tradition of supporting those who take a
principled stand against war and allow Watson and other Iraq War resisters to stay in Canada.

United Church Position

Nora Sanders as General Secretary of the United Church of Canada has publically called on the Government to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. Dan Chambers as President of the BC Conference has called on the Government to heed the will of Parliament and to let Rodney Watson stay.

The United Church provides the following guidelines:

http://www.united-church.ca/files/handbooks/refugees_sanctuary.pdf

First United has previously provided sanctuary for a refugee facing deportation.

First United is presently a sanctuary for many people. We have a written agreement that is consistently honoured in which Police do not enter the building without prior agreement between Sergeant Ruben Sorge and the Minster of the Mission (or his nominee) – despite the fact that many people inside the building do have current outstanding warrants for their arrest.

Issues to be considered:

• A Majority vote in Parliament (representing the citizens of Canada)  has twice voted to allow Iraq war resisters to stay and not be deported
• Canada has a long and proud history of welcoming those who take a principled stand against war (the Doukhobors , the Vietnam draft dodgers, etc)
• There is a patent unfairness about being able to unilaterally extend a contract – a power imbalance that would be deemed an unfair labour practice in many countries and which compounds the reality that people in desperate financial need become the powerless foot soldiers of war
• The obvious inherent contradiction of (a) holding individuals and collectives responsible for their actions and decisions in the context of war while (b) not allowing them the freedom to remove themselves from wars that are deemed by many to be unjust
• The Canadian Government has not defended or supported the war in Iraq – in fact it has refused to participate in that war and many Canadians regard it as an illegal war. Stephen Harper has admitted that the Iraq war “was absolutely an error”.
• The grounds on which the war in Iraq was initiated have been proven to be invalid
• The Church has a long tradition of assessing wars (and our personal and collective participation in them) against the Just War doctrine and philosophy
• The UCC policy implies providing Sanctuary is a reasonable and appropriate response by the Church in cases of injustice and/or where it will allow for a full and fair process
• The Humanitarian and Compassionate Review is a formal part of the Canadian Refugee Determination Process and typically follows after the removal order is implemented (person is deported).  If it finds compelling humanitarian and compassionate needs, Rodney Watson could be allowed back into Canada
• If Rodney Watson is deported, he will be sentenced to imprisonment and will have a criminal record which makes the Humanitarian and Compassionate Review moot
• Canada can decide not to remove a person until the Humanitarian and Compassionate Review can be held – this has not been offered/granted
• Canada could have a different Government within three months which might choose to honour the decisions of Parliament and allow war resisters to stay in Canada

__________________________________________________________

Conscientious Objection

United Church of Canada (Conscientious Objection and Civil Disobedience)

The 31st General Council affirmed “the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religions including the right of conscientious objection to war”

The resolution included the following “whereas” clauses:

WHEREAS the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the UN Charter obliges states “…take the necessary steps to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant…” (article 2.2);

WHEREAS the right to conscientious objection to war is a component of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in order that people who are conscientious objectors to war on religious or humanist grounds may be able to practise their beliefs;

WHEREAS the development of nuclear first-strike capability eliminate the distinction between “war” and “preparation for war”;

WHEREAS the government of Canada has ratified the Charter and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, thus committing itself to be bound by them under international law;

WHEREAS the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares that, “…Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion

———————————————-

In 1984 the UCC resolved that civil disobedience was a valid option for the Church

WHEREAS church history records many occasions when Christians have had to break the civil law in order to obey the law of God; and

WHEREAS the Sixth Assembly of the World Council of Churches called on its member churches and their members to “give witness to their unwillingness to participate in any conflict involving weapons of mass destruction or indiscriminate effects”:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The 30th General Council:

1. INSTRUCT the Division of Mission in Canada, in consultation with the Committee on Theology and Faith, to develop a theological position regarding non-violent civil disobedience and make this available to the church as a resource;
2. CALL on congregations and presbyteries to assess the validity of non-violent civil disobedience and explore any other implications of civil disobedience for the community of faith in relation to its members, to church workers and to others in the local community.

Roman Catholic Church in USA

Some Catholics believe that being a follower of Jesus prevents their participation in either all wars or certain wars that they consider to be unjust.  Although the Catholic Church recognizes selective conscientious objection (refusing to fight in a particular war), the United States government does not.  The U.S. government respects the right of individuals to refuse to fight in a war when he or she “by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to war in any form.”

The U.S. Bishops’ Declaration on Conscientious Objection and Selective Conscientious Objection, (1971) states, “In the light of the Gospel and from an analysis of the church’s teaching on conscience, it is clear that a Catholic can be a conscientious objector to war in general or to a particular war ‘because of religious training and belief.’ …As we hold individuals in high esteem who conscientiously serve in the armed forces, so also we should regard conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection as positive indicators within the Church of a sound moral awareness and respect for human life.”

United Church of Christ (USA)

Policy Statements and Resolution Summaries: Conscientious Objection

Recognizes and affirms the right of conscientious objection to participation in or support of war; urges support of such objectors; charges Council for Christian Social Action [CCSA] to provide information regarding conscientious objection. (3rd General Synod Resolution, July 7, 1961)

Affirms right of conscientious objection to participation in a particular war or in war waged under particular circumstances, as well as the right of conscientious objection to participation in war as such; calls for church support for such objectors; urges amendment to Selective Service Act to provide suitable alternatives. (Council for Christian Social Action [CCSA] Statement on Selective Conscientious Objection, January 31, 1967)

___________________________________________________________

Church Position on Sanctuary

United Church of Canada

The 34th General Council of The United Church of Canada (1992) endorsed “the moral right and responsibilities of congregations to provide sanctuary to legitimate refugee claimants who have been denied refugee status.”

Sanctuary should only be considered as a way to right a wrong or to uphold justice. As a public and prophetic witness of the church, it is to be considered only after all legal, administrative, and political appeals for justice have been tried. From this perspective, sanctuary is “moral obedience” and displays ultimate respect for the law and the justice it demands of it.

Comment by The Reverend Dr. Patricia Dutcher-Walls

Dean of Students

Professor of Hebrew Bible

Coordinator of Doctoral Programmes

Vancouver School of Theology

In the Jewish and Christian tradition, the concept of sanctuary goes back at least 2700 years; codifications of law in ancient Israel recognized the local sanctuary as a place of refuge for a person who had unintentionally killed another (Exodus 21:13 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13). Thus the actions of First United are in line with an ancient tradition of Scripture.

Methodist Church in USA

Prompted by a Fort Lewis Army officer’s decision to refuse to fight in Iraq, the First United Methodist Church of Tacoma has declared itself a sanctuary for servicemen and servicewomen who also don’t want to go to Iraq.

The 300-member congregation’s administrative council voted last weekend to open its doors beginning this Saturday after 1st Lt. Ehren Watada announced that he thinks the war in Iraq is illegal and that he has sought to resign his commission.

A statement from the church on Wednesday said that service members “who are unable to deploy to combat areas for reasons of conscience” can find protection behind its doors.

“Our initiative was because of Lieutenant Watada’s gesture and a clear sense that we have, as a reconciling congregation, deeply involved in justice issues throughout the city, that any war, particularly this one, is inconsistent with Christian teachings,” the Rev. Monty Smith said Wednesday night.

Smith said the church stands “in solidarity” with others who hold similar social-justice convictions. The church essentially is providing a protective space and resources to those contemplating whether to resist deployment to Iraq, he said.

According to the head of the denomination’s Washington D.C.-based social action agency, the Tacoma church’s decision was an important statement about the war in Iraq.

“ The church building or place of worship as a sanctuary for war resisters or those escaping persecution has a long history, and what First Church in Tacoma has done is in that tradition,” said James E. Winkler, chief executive, United Methodist Board of Church and Society.

“I don’t know whether or not this is part of a trend, but as the invasion of Iraq grinds on year after year, ever more people are unhappy about the situation,” he added. “The length of the war is but a part of the problem. The larger concern is that the people of the United States were led into war on false grounds by their elected leaders. It is impossible to fight a successful war under these circumstances.”

CBC Report on Church providing Sanctuary in Canada

On March 5, 2004, Quebec City police pushed past Rev. Gérard Doré at the door of the St. Pierre United Church. They were searching for Mohamed Cherfi.

Cherfi sought sanctuary in the church in February, after losing a long battle with immigration officials to remain in Canada as a refugee from Algeria. He argued his life would be in danger if he was deported back to his homeland, where he has been a vocal critic of human rights abuses. Police found him in the basement and clamped on handcuffs.

“I am outraged, I am indignant, and I am sad,” said Doré.

Cherfi’s arrest was the first time police had ever breached church sanctity in Canada.

“We denounce the violent intrusion of the Quebec police into one of our sanctuaries,” said the United Church of Canada in a statement released shortly after Cherfi was apprehended. The church expressed dismay the arrest would start a precedent of breaking religious sanctuaries.

The practice of giving sanctuary goes back to biblical times and was codified in the fifth century AD, when Roman law guaranteed that churches could provide refuge, even for criminals.

“We, as a church, have a responsibility to protect people from unjust laws,” United Church minister Daryll Gray told the Canadian Press.

Canada’s sanctuary movement began in 1983, when a Guatemalan was given safe haven in a Montreal church and eventually granted a stay of deportation. Since then, Canadian churches have passed resolutions reaffirming the right of asylum, particularly for refugees who have been denied immigrant status.

In the mid-nineties, The Council of Churches in Canada approved a United Church edict that “sanctuary is a place recognized as holy, a place of refuge. It is a sacred place where fugitives from the law have traditionally been secured by the church against arrest or violence.”

There are no laws in Canada protecting church sanctity and until the March incident, Canadian police had been reluctant to breach it. France has adopted a law allowing police to break church sanctuaries, while British and American police have routinely gone in and taken people from churches.

Hundreds of people have sought sanctuary in Canadian churches since the 1980s. It’s a practice Judy Sgro said she wanted to stop when she was immigration minister.

“People shouldn’t be allowed to hide anywhere,” Sgro told the Canadian Press in 2004. “Nobody is exempt from the law.”

But Sgro’s attitude softened after meeting with Canada’s churches that offer sanctuary. In December 2004 she gave ministerial permission for a man in Ottawa and a family in Montreal to leave their church sanctuary and apply for landed immigrant status, without fear of deportation.

Church leaders argue that they must provide refuge because the federal system for determining refugee status is flawed.

“Canada is not living up to its international obligations,” says Rev. Chris Ferguson, spokesperson for justice issues for the United Church. Ferguson says churches do not believe they are breaking the law since they see it as a moral obligation to protect refugees.

Angus Reid public opinion poll

A public opinion poll conducted by Angus Reid Strategies in June 2008 found widespread approval (64%) for the House of Commons’ vote in support of war resisters. Nearly two thirds of Canadians support some form of legislation that would allow war resisters to seek resident status in Canada.

____________________________________________________________

Church Position on the War in Iraq

United Church of Canada

When War was declared, the UCC called on all its members to “Write directly to the Canadian Government to applaud the decision not to participate in the war on Iraq. Also encourage the Government to further implore the United States to not proceed with military action and to make it clear that such action violates international law”.

United Methodist Church in the USA

January 2006: A statement of conscience calling the war “an unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq” has been signed by 99 bishops and more than 5,000 members of the United Methodist Church, the second-largest Protestant denomination in the land.

Roman Catholic Church

In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a “preemptive” or “preventive” strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said that such a “war of aggression” is a crime against peace. Archbishop Renato Martino, who used the same words in calling the possible military intervention a “crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God,” also criticized the pressure that the most powerful nations exerted on the less powerful ones on the U.N. Security Council to support the war.

John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.

United Church of Christ USA

August 2007 – Pastoral Letter to all members:

“Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ: At the 26th General Synod in Hartford, Conn., the Collegium of Officers issued a Pastoral Letter on the Iraq War endorsed by all of the Conference Ministers and the Presidents of the Seminaries of the United Church of Christ. The Pastoral Letter calls on the church to “join protest to prayer” in an effort to end the war.”

October 10, 2007

After ignoring three warnings from police, the Rev. John H. Thomas and the Rev. Linda Jaramillo were arrested at 12:58 p.m. (ET) on Wednesday, Oct. 10, for refusing to leave a no-protest zone near the White House gate.

The two national UCC officers were attempting to deliver a Pastoral Letter on the Iraq War, along with 60,000 endorsing signatures.

Both faced the White House and held up thick stacks of the petitions, before being asked by police to step back from the White House fence. After refusing to do so, Thomas and Jaramillo were handcuffed and led to a police van.

Thomas, the UCC’s general minister and president, and Jaramillo, executive minister for Justice and Witness Ministries, had earlier sought a meeting with the White House’s public liaison office, in order to hand-deliver the petitions, but their requests were not granted.

Before the arrest, Thomas and Jaramillo spoke to a group of about 50 clergy andl laypersons who had gathered from the D.C. area to support them.

Thomas reminded the crowd of martyred theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who said, “The church has been a silent partner in evil deeds.” To which Thomas added, “We are breaking that silence today.”

“This is a difficult time for people of faith who are opposed to the war,” said Thomas, who named “an apparant lack of will to change course” as an immobilizing frustration for both the American and Iraqi people. The UCC’s summer anti-war petition drive, he said, was about “claiming hope and action again.”

“This, for us, is a very meaningful witness of the whole church,” said Thomas, who indicated that their peaceful demonstation at the White House gate was about “more than two officers of the church, but representing many, many across our denomination.”

Jaramillo said, “As a church, we can no longer be silent.”