Lesbian U.S. deserter case must be reviewed: (Canadian) court

[Newsjock]

Source: Canadian Press

The Federal Court says the refugee board must reconsider the case of a lesbian who deserted from the U.S. army and fled to Canada.

Judge Yves de Montigny said the board erred last February when it rejected Bethany Smith's bid for refugee status.

Smith said she fled the army because she was harassed and threatened by fellow soldiers over her sexual orientation.

She said she couldn't seek help from her superiors because she feared they might have been part of the harassment.

The judge said the board must reconsider her case because it unfairly dismissed evidence suggesting that gays face harsher treatment in the American military justice system.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/20/refugee-board-soldier-lesbian.html

[brooklynite]

1. Why did she desert?

All she had to do was announce her status, and the Army would be forced to drop her.

[harmonicon]

2. maybe because she has principles...

and was complying with "don't ask, don't tell". What is the point of the rule if it isn't honored by all parties? The real rule seems to be - despite the name - "lie, or get fired".

[24601]

3. That doesn't sound like a complete understanding of the "rule"

Before DADT, there was no law in place, only policies. DoD policy - established by regulation, not law stated that that "Homosexuality is inconsistent with Military Service." It applied to sexual orientation, regardless of whether it was accompanied by homosexual conduct.

DADT was crafted in 1993 and incorporated into law. DADT bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military, as mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). UCMJ provisions prohibiting Sodomy (applying to gay and straight) were not modified and Homosexual Sex remains pretty much criminalized (as well as hetro blow-jobs and other things that are pretty much ignored).

DADT doesn't deny a person's 1st amendment free speech rights to declare their sexuality openly. Instead, it protects service members from being asked about their sexuality and gives them the right not to tell. The right of course doesn't have to exercised by the service member and they have the legal right, they are breaking no rules by telling. They will, however, then be discharged.

So had she "told", she wouldn't be breaking a rule, but deciding not to exercise her right. The two should not be confused.

[JonQ]

5. Complying with DADT because she refuses to break rules

but then deserting the military during a time of war?

Which of those do you suppose is the more significant rule?

[harmonicon]

6. I think the violation of someone's basic human rights, and threatening their safety...

because of bigotry is always more important than some bullshit like war - even a just war (if you hadn't noticed, we aren't involved in just wars). What would the point being in defending your country if your countrymen don't want you?

[JonQ]

7. In the military desertion trumps DADT

and no one is threatening her for being a lesbian, at least not in this scenario. Had she come out she merely would have been discharged, not shot.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. actually she was being harrassed. read the article. that was her main contention

[JonQ]

22. Then come out and be discharged

no laws will be broken that way.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. if you are already being harrassed for being gay, do you think coming out is safe?

[JonQ]

26. What do you think happens in a DADT scenario?

They force the poor individual to run the gauntlet?

You get a court marshal and are removed from your position. It's absolutely a wrongheaded policy, but it does not involve physical harm and is less of a blemish on your record (or none at all depending on who you are talking to) than desertion during a time of war.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. this person was already claiming harm. dont you get that? coming out may have put them

at physical peril and dont tell me the army doesnt do that. the court martialling is also not an immediate procedure.

[EFerrari]

23. The very worst aspect of DADT in a practical sense

is that it makes it nearly impossible to seek help for harassment. It's dangerous on top of everything else.

[quakerboy]

8. It follows principals and

the law to desert, but not to to allow information of your sexual identity to become officially public?

I could be missing something, but that does not seem logical to me.

[harmonicon]

9. so it's ok for homosexuals to be second class citizens?

even when they comply with DADT and are harassed because of presumption?

[quakerboy]

10. Of course not. DADT needs to end, as does the harassment.

My point is if someone is unwilling to break one code, why would they be willing to break another?

[harmonicon]

12. Because she felt her rights were being violated when she tried not to break the code.

To just give up would have been to accept the violation. I don't see how the two things are at all comparable.

[quakerboy]

14. Desertion is also a code violation, no?

It was an untenable situation. She found one answer. The rules, and the behaviors (which I see as seperate issues, given the apparent commonality of abuse of females in the military, despite rules) need to change. What I am saying is that it seems that this person had 2 paths open to her while the rules stand as they are, both of which violate the rules of the military. Thus the governing factor was not the need to avoid violating rules, it was something else, which I assume was the need to be considered as an equal person.

[harmonicon]

19. yes, that's what I've been trying to say

That is that it's about "the need to be considered as an equal person."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. i think it had more to do with her safety

[boppers]

4. A problem with your statement.

"All she had to do was announce her status,"

Don't tell.

[iris27]

11. "Telling" gets you dishonorable discharge...desertion usually gets

you court-martialed. It makes no sense for her to feel honor-bound or whatever to follow the DT part of DADT, but feel a-ok with deserting.

[harmonicon]

13. *banging head against all*

It makes sense, because there is a difference between right and wrong.

[EFerrari]

24. Maybe she was trying to avoid injury to her person.

Ya think?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. because she was already being harrassed? as she stated.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. i wonder if people read this article. she didnt just leave because she wanted out of the army

" saying she was harassed and threatened by fellow soldiers over her sexual orientation and feared that her life would be in danger if she were deported and returned to the army."

so if she TOLD maybe she would get harassed more. which is probably why she left instead of just telling.

[ruggerson]

20. Judging by the replies

many didn't.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. what else is new. if i am already threatened because think i am gay, clearly my coming out in

violation of army law would REALLY HELP