The
History of Conscientious Objection
From
Wikipedia:
Historically,
many conscientious objectors have been executed,
imprisoned or sanctioned when their beliefs led
to actions conflicting with their society's
legal system or government. The legal definition
and status of conscientious objection has varied
over the years and from nation to nation.
Religious beliefs were a starting point in many
nations for legally granting conscientious
objection status. Acceptable grounds for
granting conscientious objector status have
broadened in many countries.
In
1971 a United States Supreme Court decision
broadened
U.S.
rules beyond religious belief but denied the
inclusion of objections to specific wars as
grounds for conscientious objection. Some
desiring to include the objection to specific
wars distinguish between wars of offensive
aggression and defensive wars while others
contend that religious, moral or ethical
opposition to war need not be absolute or
consistent but may depend on circumstance or
political conviction. Currently, the U.S.
Selective Service System states, "Beliefs
which qualify a registrant for conscientious
objector status may be religious in nature, but
don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or
ethical; however, a man's reasons for not
wanting to participate in a war must not be
based on politics, expediency, or self-interest.
In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making
his claim must reflect his current claims.” In
the US, this applies to primary claims, that is,
those filed on initial SSS registration. On the
other hand, those who apply after either having
registered without filing, and/or having
attempted or effected a deferral, are
specifically required to demonstrate a discrete
and documented change in belief, including a
precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO.
The male reference is due to the current
"male only" basis for conscription in
the
United States
.
COs
willing to perform non-combatant military
functions are classed 1-A-O by the
US
; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O.
Conscientious
objection and doing civilian service has, in
many countries, evolved into a veritable
institution. Today in
Germany
, civil servants who are fulfilling their
service in the nursing or social domain bear a
huge part of the respective workload. It is
believed that abolishing the draft—and with
that, the compulsory civil service for
objectors—would plunge hospitals and nursing
homes into severe trouble.
Religious
motives
The
reasons for refusing to serve are varied. Many
conscientious objectors are so for religious
reasons. Members of the Historic Peace Churches
are pacifist by doctrine. Jehovah's Witnesses,
who, while not pacifist in the strict sense,
refuse to participate in the armed services on
the grounds that they believe Christians should
be neutral in worldly conflicts. Some look at
Romans 12:19, which says, Do not take revenge,
my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for
it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I
will repay," says the Lord. Other
objections can stem from a deep sense of
responsibility toward humanity as a whole, or
from simple denial that any government should
have that kind of moral authority.
There
are divergent views about the degree of pacifism
in the early Christian Church. Within the
Roman Empire
avoiding military service was not a problem,
because the legions and other armed forces were
largely composed of volunteers. Some legionaries
who converted to Christianity were able to
reconcile warfare with their Christian beliefs
which is formalized in the Just War theory. This
option became more normal after
Constantine
I made Christianity an official religion of the
Empire. In the 11th century, there was a further
shift of opinion in the Latin-Christian
tradition with the crusades, strengthening the
idea and acceptability of Holy War. Objectors
became a minority.
Feudalism
imposed various forms of military obligation,
before and after the crusading movement (which
was composed of volunteers). But the demand was
to send someone rather than any particular
person. Those who did not wish to fight, for
whatever reason, were left alone if they could
pay or persuade someone else to go. Armies in
medieval times were quite small - for instance
Bosworth Field settled the fate of England
with 8,000 fighting for Richard III defeated by
5,000 gathered by Henry Tudor/Henry VII. The
question of unwilling service did not arise
until armies became much larger.
One
argument used by some Christian objectors is
that every soldier should be given the choice to
go home before every battle according to
Deuteronomy 20:8 which states, Then the officers
shall add, "Is any man afraid or
fainthearted? Let him go home so that his
brothers will not become disheartened too."
By this interpretation, any military draft as
well as all military service that is based on
enlistment in years or tours of duty would be
unethical without the option to refuse any
battle without punishment. This interpretation
makes almost all wars in violation of Christian
Just War theory.
Because
of their conscientious objection to
participation in military service, whether armed
or unarmed, Jehovah's Witnesses have often faced
imprisonment or other penalties. In
Greece
, for example, before the introduction of
alternative civilian service in 1997, hundreds
of Witnesses were imprisoned, some for three
years or even more for their refusal. More
recently, in
Armenia
, young Jehovah's Witnesses have been imprisoned
(and remain in prison) because of their
conscientious objection to military service. In
Switzerland
, virtually every Jehovah's Witness is exempted
from military service. The Finnish government
exempts Jehovah's Witnesses from the draft
completely.
For
believers in Dharmic Religions, the opposition
to warfare may be based on either the general
idea of ahimsa, non-violence, or on an explicit
prohibition of violence by their religion, e.g.,
for a Buddhist, one of the five precepts is
"Pānātipātā
veramaṇi sikkhāpadam samādiyāmi,"
or "I undertake the precept to refrain from
destroying living creatures," which is in
obvious opposition to the practice of warfare.
The 14th Dalai Lama, the highest religious
authority in Tibetan Buddhism, has stated that
war "should be relegated to the dustbin of
history."
Alternatives
for objectors
Some
conscientious objectors are unwilling to serve
the military in any capacity, while others
accept noncombatant roles. Alternatives to
military or civilian service include serving an
imprisonment or other punishment for refusing
conscription, falsely claiming unfitness for
duty by feigning an allergy or a heart
condition, delaying conscription until the
maximum drafting age, or seeking refuge in a
country which does not extradite those wanted
for military conscription. Avoiding military
service is sometimes labeled draft dodging,
particularly if the goal is accomplished through
dishonesty or evasive maneuvers. However, many
people who support conscription will distinguish
between "bona fide" conscientious
objection and draft dodging, which they view as
evasion of military service without a valid
excuse.
United States
During
the American Revolutionary War exemptions varied
by state.
Pennsylvania
required conscientious objectors, who would not
join companies of voluntary soldiers called
Associations, to pay a fine roughly equal to the
time they would have spent in military drill.
Quakers who refused this extra tax had their
property confiscated.
The
first conscription in the
United States
came with the Civil War. Although conscientious
objection was not part of the draft law,
individuals could provide a substitute or pay
$300 to hire one. By 1864 the draft act allowed
the $300 to be paid for the benefit of sick and
wounded soldiers. Conscientious objectors in
Confederate States initially had few options.
Responses included moving to northern states,
hiding in the mountains, joining the army but
refusing to use a weapon or imprisonment.
Between late 1862 and 1864 a payment of $500
into the public treasury exempted conscientious
objectors from Confederate military duty.
We
were cursed, beaten, kicked, and compelled to go
through exercises to the extent that a few were
unconscious for some minutes. They kept it up
for the greater part of the afternoon, and then
those who could possibly stand on their feet
were compelled to take cold shower baths. One of
the boys was scrubbed with a scrubbing brush
using lye on him. They drew blood in several
places.
Mennonite
from
Camp Lee
,
Virginia
,
United States
, 16 July 1918.
John
T. Neufeld was a WWI conscientious objector
sentenced to 15 years hard labor in the military
prison at
Leavenworth
. He was paroled to do dairy work and released
after serving five months of his sentence. In
the
United States
during World War I, conscientious objectors were
permitted to serve in noncombatant military
roles. About 2,000 absolute conscientious
objectors refused to cooperate in any way with
the military. These men were imprisoned in
military facilities such as Fort Lewis
(Washington), Alcatraz Island (California) and
Fort Leavenworth (Kansas). The government failed
to take into account that some conscientious
objectors viewed any cooperation with the
military as contributing to the war effort.
Their refusal to put on a uniform or cooperate
in any way caused difficulties for both the
government and the
COs
. The mistreatment received by these absolute
COs included short rations, solitary confinement
and physical abuse so severe as to cause the
deaths of two Hutterite draftees.
Eventually,
because of the shortage of farm labor, the
conscientious objectors were granted furloughs
either for farm service or relief work in
France
under the American Friends Service Committee. A
limited number performed alternative service as
fire fighters in the Cascade Range in the
vicinity of
Camp Lewis
,
Washington
and in a
Virginia
psychiatric hospital.
During
World War II, all registrants were sent a
questionnaire covering basic facts about their
identification, physical condition, history, and
also provided a checkoff to indicate opposition
to military service because of religious
training or belief. Men marking the latter
option received a DSS 47 form with ten
questions:
-
Describe
the nature of your belief which is the basis
of your claim.
-
Explain
how, when, and from whom or from what source
you received the training and acquired the
belief which is the basis of your claim.
-
Give
the name and present address of the
individual upon whom you rely most for
religious guidance.
-
Under
what circumstances, if any, do you believe
in the use of force?
-
Describe
the actions and behavior in your life which
in your opinion most conspicuously
demonstrate the consistency and depth of
your religious convictions.
-
Have
you ever given public expression, written or
oral, to the views herein expressed as the
basis for your claim made above? If so,
specify when and where.
-
Have
you ever been a member of any military
organization or establishment? If so, state
the name and address of same and give
reasons why you became a member.
-
Are
you a member of a religious sect or
organization?
-
Describe
carefully the creed or official statements
of said religious sect or organization as it
relates to participation in war.
-
Describe
your relationships with and activities in
all organizations with which you are or have
been affiliated other than religious or
military.
Civilian
Public Service firefighting crew at Snowline
Camp near
Camino
,
California
, 1945.Civilian Public Service (CPS) provided
conscientious objectors in the
United States
an alternative to military service during World
War II. From 1941 to 1947 nearly 12,000
draftees, unwilling to do any type of military
service, performed work of national importance
in 152 CPS camps throughout the
United States
and
Puerto Rico
. The work was initially done in areas isolated
from the general population both because of the
government's concern that a pacifist philosophy
would spread and that conscientious objectors
would not be tolerated in neighboring
communities. A constant problem through the
duration of the program, especially in camps
located in national forests for fire control,
was make-work projects designed to occupy the
men's time in the off-season and between fires.
For instance, men at a camp on the
Blue Ridge Parkway
in
Virginia
shoveled snow from an unused roadway while a
snowplow was parked nearby. The uselessness of
this type of work lead to low morale and loss of
experienced men as they requested transfers to
other camps hoping for more meaningful work.
Draftees from the historic peace churches and
other faiths worked in areas such as soil
conservation, forestry, fire fighting,
agriculture, social services and mental health.
The
CPS men served without wages and minimal support
from the federal government. The cost of
maintaining the CPS camps and providing for the
needs of the men was the responsibility of their
congregations and families. CPS men served
longer than regular draftees, not being released
until well past the end of the war. Initially
skeptical of the program, government agencies
learned to appreciate the men's service and
requested more workers from the program. CPS
made significant contributions to forest fire
prevention, erosion and flood control, medical
science and especially in revolutionizing of the
state-run mental health institutions which had
previously been very inhumane and often cruel.
Alternatives
to war bonds and war savings stamps were
provided for those who could not conscientiously
help fund the WWII. National Service Board for
Religious Objectors offered civilian bonds and
Mennonite Central Committee offered Civilian
Public Service stamps and War Sufferers' Relief
stamps.
Civilian
Public Service was disbanded in 1947. By the
early 1950s a replacement program, 1-W service,
was in place for conscientious objectors
classified as 1-W by Selective Service. The new
program eliminated the base camps of CPS and
provided wages for the men.
1-W
service was divided into several categories. The
Earning Service involved working in institutions
such as hospitals for fairly good wages.
Voluntary Service was nonpaying work done in
similar institutions, mostly within
North America
. Pax Service was a nonpaying alternative with
assignments overseas. 1-W
Mission
Supporting Service was like the Earning Service
but the wages were used for the support of
mission, relief or service projects of the
draftees choice. The nonpaying services were
promoted by church agencies as a sacrifice to
enhance the peace witness of conscientious
objectors.
Canada
Mennonites
in
Canada
were automatically exempt from any type of
service during WWI by provisions of the Order in
Council of 1873. During WWII, Canadian
conscientious objectors were given the options
of noncombatant military service, serving in the
medical or dental corps under military control
or working in parks and on roads under civilian
supervision. Over 95% chose the latter and were
placed in Alternative Service camps. Initially
the men worked on road building, forestry and
firefighting projects. After May 1943, as the
labor shortaged developed within the nation, men
were shifted into agriculture, education and
industry. The 10,700 Canadian objectors were
mostly Mennonites (63%) and Dukhobors (20%).
Eastern Europe
After
World War II, conscientious objectors in the
Soviet Union
and the German Democratic Republic were
typically assigned to construction units, in the
absence of a fully civilian alternative to
military service.
In
Czechoslovakia
those not willing to enter mandatory military
service could avoid it by signing years-long
work contract in unattractive occupations, such
as mining. Those who didn't sign were punished
by imprisonment. Both numbers were tiny. After
the communist party lost its power (1989),
alternative civil service was established.
Western Europe
Britain
Conscientious
Objector memorial in
Tavistock
Square
Gardens
,
London
— dedicated on 15 May 1994Britain's armed
services had for centuries been all-volunteer
forces - though press gangs took sailors for the
Royal Navy in the Napoleonic War.
In
the 1914-18 war,
Britain
introduced conscription with the Military
Service Act of 1916. This meant that objections
on religious or ethical grounds became an issue.
Of those 'called up', about 16,000 refused to
fight. Quakers, traditionally pacifist, played a
large role. Many objectors accepted non-combat
service. Some worked as stretcher-bearers, which
was dangerous even though no one intentionally
shot at them.
Objectors
had to prove their right not to fight.
8,608
appeared before Military Tribunals. Over 4,500
were sent to do work of national importance such
as farming. However, 528 were sentenced to
severe penalties. This included 17 who were
sentenced to death (afterwards commuted), 142 to
life imprisonment, three to 50 years'
imprisonment, four to 40 years and 57 to 25
years. Conditions were made very hard for the
conscientious objectors and sixty-nine of them
died in prison.
In
World War Two, there were nearly 60,000
registered Conscientious Objectors. Tests were
much less harsh - it was generally enough to say
that you objected to "warfare as a means of
settling international disputes", a phrase
from the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. Objectors
were required to do work that was either
war-related or classified as 'useful'.
Conscription was continued (as National service)
until 1960.
Note
that British conscription never applied to
Ireland
- but see Conscription Crisis of 1918 (
Ireland
). The various parts of the Empire and
Commonwealth had their own rules.
Germany
According
to Article 12a of the German constitution (Grundgesetz),
every adult man can be obligated to military
service called Wehrdienst. The draftee can apply
for an alternative service called "Zivildienst"
(civilian service), if he declares conscience
reasons. The civil service may not last longer
than military service. This rule has been
applied since October 1, 2004. Before that date
the civilian service was longer than military
service, because soldiers could later be called
to military exercises (Wehrübungen). In
wartime, civilian draftees are expected to
replace those on active military duty in their
civilian professions.
South Africa
's Anti-War Experience
During
the 1980s hundreds of South African
"White" Males dodged-the-draft,
refused the call-up or objected to conscription
in the Apartheid Defense Force. Some simply
deserted, or joined organizations such as the
End Conscription Campaign, an anti-war movement
banned in 1988, others fled into exile and
joined the Committee on South African War
Resistance. Most lived in a state of internal
exile, forced to go underground within the
borders of the country until a moratorium on
conscription was declared in 1993. Opposition to
the Angolan War, "
South Africa
's
Vietnam
", was rife in English-speaking campuses,
and later the war in the townships became the
focus of these groupings.
Turkey
The
issue is highly controversial in
Turkey
.
Turkey
and
Azerbaijan
are the only two countries refusing to recognize
conscientious objection and sustain their
membership in the Council of Europe. In January
2006, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
found
Turkey
had violated article 3 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of
degrading treatment) in a case dealing with
conscientious objection. In 2005, Mehmet Tarhan
was sentenced to four years in a military prison
as a conscientious objector (he was unexpectedly
released in March 2006). Journalist Perihan
Magden was tried by a Turkish court for
supporting Tarhan and advocating conscientious
objection as a human right; but later, she was
acquitted.
Israel
Israel
has a long history of individuals and groups
refusing military service. Such acts are
recorded since the state's foundation in 1948,
but during the country's first decades involved
mainly a few isolated individuals, usually of a
Pacifist persuasion, due to pervasive public
feeling that the country was fighting for its
survival and that the IDF was a "Defense
Force" in fact as well as in name. This
view came in question following the occupation
of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 when the
army took up the job of keeping a sizeable
Palestinian population under Israeli rule by
force, often involving what were perceived by
many Israelis as violations of human rights and
the safeguarding of an increasing number of
settlements erected on formerly-Palestinian land
acquired in ways which many Israelis considered
highly questionable.
The
invasion of Lebanon in 1982, launched with the
proclaimed aim of "creating a new order in
the Middle East" and without a visible
existential threat to Israel, precipitated a
mass anti-war movement (comparable in many ways
to the American movement against the Vietnam
War) of which a major component was an organized
movement by thousands of soldiers (especially
reserve soldiers) refusing service in Lebanon.
This was continued during the First Intifada and
the Second Intifada and has become a permanent
feature of Israeli social and political life up
to the present.
While
some of the individuals and groups involved fit
with the definition of Conscientious Objection
common in other countries, the phenomenon of
"selective refusal" - i.e. soldiers
who remain inside the army but refuse particular
orders or postings, especially to Lebanon or the
Occupied Territories - seems more widespread in
Israel than anywhere else. A longstanding debate
continues, of which there is no definitive
conclusion, on whether or not this constitutes
Conscientious Objection in the strict sense or
should be treated as a separate phenomenon. (See
wikipedia page on Refusal to serve in the
Israeli military).
Other
Countries
As
of 2005, COs in several countries may serve as
field paramedics in the army (although some do
not consider this a genuine alternative, as they
feel it merely helps to make war more humane
instead of preventing it). Alternatively, they
may serve without arms, although this, too, has
its problems. In certain European countries such
as
Austria
,
Germany
,
Greece
and
Switzerland
, there is the option of performing Civilian
Service, subject to the review of a written
application or after a hearing about the state
of conscience (see below). In
Greece
, Civilian Service is 2 times longer the
corresponding military service and in
Switzerland
, the Civilian Service is 1.5 times longer. In
2005, the Swiss parliament considered whether
willingness to serve 1.5 times longer than an
army recruit was sufficient proof of sincerity,
citing that the cost of judging the state of
conscience of just a few thousand men per year
was too great.
Hearings
about the state of the conscience
In
the
United States
, military personnel who come to a conviction of
conscientious objection during their tour of
duty must appear in front of a panel of experts,
which consists of psychiatrists, army chaplains
and officers. In
Switzerland
, the panel consists entirely of civilians and
military personnel have no authority whatsoever.
In Germany, objections to military service are
filed in writing, and an oral hearing is only
scheduled if the written testimonials has been
unconvincing; in practice, due to the heavy
workload—about half of all draftees in a given
year file memorials as conscientious
objectors—the competent authority reviews
written applications only summarily, and it
denies the alternative of a civilian service
only in cases of grave shortcomings or
inconsistencies in the written testimonials.
Commonly, once an objector is summoned to a
hearing, he has to explain what experiences
drove him to recognize a conflict concerning his
conscience.
Common
questions at hearings
In
general: How and when did you decide against the
military service? Why can't you arrange military
service with your conscience? What prohibits you
to serve in the military?
Military
service: Do you fear having to fight, or to use
force? Do you want to abolish the army? What do
you think about the phrase "We have the
army to defend us, not to kill others"?
Use
of force: What would you do if you were
attacked? What do you feel when you see that
others are attacked? What is violence, exactly?
Would you rather experience losses than having
to use force?
Belief:
What does your belief say? Would you describe
yourself as a pacifist? What basic values,
besides objecting to violence, do you have? What
entity gives you the certainty that your
thinking and your feelings are right?
Implementation
of your beliefs: Why didn't you choose to go
into prison if your conscience is that strong?
Why didn't you use medical reasons to avoid
military service? What do you actually do to
further peace, or is your attitude the only
peaceful thing about you?
Personality:
Who is in charge of defending your children in
case of an armed conflict? Do you live your
ethical principles inside your family? What
books do you read? What do you demand from
yourself? Are you merely a leader, a follower or
a loner?
These
are common questions from Swiss hearings.[21] By
and large, these are asked in many other
countries. They help to determine if the
objector is politically motivated or if he is
just too lazy to serve the country; or if he
truly has a conflict stemming from his
conscience. Arguments like "The army is
senseless", "It is not just to wage
wars" or opposition to involvement in a
specific war (World War II, the Vietnam War, the
Iraq War; a hypothetical war of
West Germany
against fellow Germans from the GDR during the
Cold War) will hardly ever be accepted. He has
only, and convincingly, to show that his
conscience does not allow participation in an organization
which is intended to use violence.
Criticism
of such hearings
Hypothetical
situations
In
hearings about one's personal conflicts of
conscience, certain subtleties may arise. One
example from interrogations in
Germany
is about a plank of wood floating on the sea,
and you, shipwrecked, need cling to it in order
to save your life. Another person swims nearby
and he also is in need of this plank. If you
deny him the plank, you are apparently ready to
accept the killing of a human being, and
therefore able to serve in the military.
Otherwise, when you would give the plank to your
fellow shipwrecked being, you are willing to die
and therefore not credible. "Well, it comes
to a fight!" is not a good answer both
because it is elusive, and in stating that there
would be a fight you imply that somebody might
get killed.
In
other examples, the interviewers wanted to know
if you're ready to kill someone in personal
self-defense, perhaps when a friend or family
member is in immediate danger. The analogy to a
possible commitment in the military is wrong
since defending an emotionally close person
rarely damages your personality, but in the
military you're forced into a situation where
you have to commit collective self-defense.
Another example is that by driving a car, you
could kill someone by mistake. Since the
objector in question refused to waive his
driving license, he is deemed to be
untrustworthy.
Also
in
Britain
during World War I there was one argument put
forward by a conscientious objector. First he
asked the people who were part of the tribunal
if they were Christian, when they all replied in
the positive he then remarked, "Could you
imagine Christ in khaki running out into no-mans
land?" None of the panelists could, and the
man was given total exemption due to 'religious
beliefs'
In
various places, questions about such
hypothetical situations have come into disuse
because they do not explore the present-day
state of the objector's conflict of conscience,
but possible future actions which, with a great
probability, will never take place. In the
1980s, these types of questions were abolished
in
Germany
after the
Federal Constitutional Court
found them unconstitutional.
Similar
hearings and questions about hypothetical
situations were in use in
Finland
for the most part of the history of Finnish
conscientious objection, from its introduction
in the 1930s to the 1980s, when they were
abolished. Today, draftees have to specify
whether they are objecting for religious or
ethical reasons by checking off a respective box
on a form, but hearings are no longer held. If a
conscripts turns into a conscientious objector
during their service, the Defense Force will
inquire of their reasons for internal research
purposes, but the objectors are not required to
answer unless they wish so. Usually, a
conscientious objector will be released from the
military within a few hours of making the claim.
|