| Subject: |
|
Re: Re: Re: There can be no opt outs |
| Name: |
|
Simon |
| Date Posted: |
|
Jul 27, 05 - 11:44 AM |
| Message: |
|
Many thanks for these points. I'll respond to them all at once as best I can.
In a democratic society, majority rule does apply, but clearly not to everything. If the majority wanted to kill the minority on the day following the election, it would be right to oppose the majority.
Nevertheless, we aren't going to court to undermine majority rule. You won't find an argument for a general opt-out in our campaign.
Our point is that deliberate killing is unique. Hospitals and schools don't set out to knowingly kill large numbers of more or less innocent and defenceless people. Bombers do.
It is important to be careful when saying this because feelings run high - and so they should - it's a serious issue. So, firstly, I'm clear that the armed forces are made up of human beings who don't normally commit violence for its own sake, or for fun. Secondly, violence is not the only thing they do. Thirdly, military violence is often done (as far as I can see) against the better judgment of many individual servicemen and women. And finally, many of the others sincerely believe that it really is the best way they can make the world a safer and better place, and they act on this belief, often at the cost of great personal sacrifice. So I understand why and how it happens, and why people get angry when we question the results.
But none of this changes the fact that I disagree. Be the motive good or bad, what is being done is wrong. Moreover, it isn't enough to make peace - if it does any long-term good at all. It doesn't work.
Where does that leave me? It's an issue of unique seriousness: deliberately killing people. I may be prepared to bow to the will of the majority on issues such as health, education and roads. Fair enough: life's full of compromises.
But on killing, you have to take a stand. The government admits this in principle. This is why it won't whip MPs on votes on things like capital punishment. Also, when an elected government goes to war, it still allows a minority to refuse military service (often a large minority - tens of thousands in world war 2). You may believe that it's wrong to allow this, but the government has taken a different line through two world wars since 1916. It's not a revolutionary view to take. It's been the law since before women had the vote. In fact, if you like, it's an example of the liberal tolerance and freedom which is commonly praised as a great British tradition.
Where the Peace Tax Seven are perhaps different is in saying that paying for war is the same morally as fighting wars. Again, this isn't such a revolutionary idea. If I give money to dictators or terrorists, of course I share in their guilt. So, especially given the current state of the world, it's not hard to see why some people object to paying for the armed forces. As it's an issue of deliberate killing, they have the right.
That's the core of our argument. But there's an important side-issue which isn't strictly part of the legal case. Here it is.
Perhaps, if we won our case, we'd find ourselves enjoying the protection of the armed forces, when we weren't paying for it. We'd be freeloading.
Our response is that there are other ways to pay towards the safety of the community. You can imagine two ways to protect yourself from terrorism, for example. One set of methods are violent: paying soldiers, intelligence personnel, and others to use force and counter-terrorism. This may (sometimes) keep the lid on the basic problem, but in the long run it doesn't usually solve it.
The other methods are nonviolent: paying for development, negotiation, arbitration, conflict prevention and resolution, and the like. Whether or not you agree with violence in principle, such nonviolent methods work. There have been a lot of wars which nearly happened, but they don't make the headlines.
You can say you need both methods; you can say neither method is perfect. But what's very clear is that there's a way round the conscientious objector's dilemma here.
You can think I'm completely wrong if you like, with all this talk of nonviolence. I have to say increasing numbers of specialists seem to be against you, including a lot of people who aren't absolute pacifists at all. You disagree: fair enough: it's your right: let's agree to differ. And let's also agree that we both still need to pay for the safety of the community. Fine: you pay for the war; I'll pay for the peace. You pay for the troops; I'll pay for the negotiators. You pay the bombers; I'll pay the builders. Let's see who gets most peace for their pound in the long run.
This argument is not part of our legal case. But for what it's worth, we'd suggest some such system is the best solution to the problem we face.
BTW, as we don't get legal aid, we haven't ourselves spent any taxpayer's money on this case. I'd say some taxpayers' money has been spent hearing our case in the court, and putting up a defence on behalf of the government. This was because the court and the government decided that we had a point. Enough of a point, at least, to spend time considering it in more detail than many cases get. Otherwise it would never have got as far as the High Court, and you probably wouldn't even have heard we'd done it. As taxpayers, you pay the court's wages, and you're entitled to object to its decisions. But the decision was theirs, not ours, so object to them, not us.
Kind thoughts to all
Simon |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Webmasters! New Photo Album Service Launched - Check it out!
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com