Talk:Conscientious objector

I ask

I ask why would they do this. This is such a crime.

Remove Bosworth Material

I question if this is relevant at all, but have left the general comment about the feudal obligation. This emphasises that the ability to avoid fighting was dependent on money or influence. (I have resisted the temptation to compare and contrast this with the US Draft.) I have removed the suggestion that conscientious objection was not an issue in feudal times becasue few peple fought in battles:- (a) The suggestion that because the numbers in battles like Bosworth were small it wasn't an issue is silly. If you were a tenant of one of the Stanley family you were liable to service. (b) The suggestion is based on ignorance of the historical position. I doubt if the concept of "conscientious objection" existed, but that was becasue it was not a state of mind that would exist in 1485, not becasue there were not many people required to fight. GBH 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Restated the definition and organized a short intro

"A conscientious objector is a person whose beliefs are incompatible with military service - perhaps with any role in the armed forces (in which case he or she is either pacifist or antimilitarist) - or who objects to a particular war. This may constitute a conflict with conscription or military service."

"Conscientious objectors may distinguish between wars of offensive aggression and defensive wars. The opposition to war need not be absolute and total, but may depend on circumstance. The only real criterion that defines a conscientious objector is that the individual is sincerely following the dictates of their conscience."

"The legal status of conscientious objectors has varied over the years and from nation to nation. Many conscientious objectors have been imprisoned or executed for refusing to participate in wars. In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in 1970 that it is not necessary for a conscientious objector to have a religious basis for their beliefs."

I shortened this beginning into a current CO distinction compatible with most law that recognizes CO status. I tried to faithfully retain the core of CO as being the following the religious, moral or ethical dictates of one's conscience. And to avoid eliminating and existing expression.

"A conscientious objector is an individual following the religious, moral or ethical dictates of their conscience that are incompatible: (1) with being a combatant in military service, or (2) being part of the armed forces as a combatant organization. In the first case, conscientious objectors may be willing to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service. In the second case, the objection is to any role within armed forces and results in complete rejection of conscription or military service and, in some countries, assignment to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service. Some conscientious objectors may consider themselves either pacifist or antimilitarist."

The statement, "or who objects to a particular war" may be a desired addition to both the distinction and legal definition of CO by some. There has been a long series of plaintiffs that claim particular types of war, or political convictions about a war or personal or societal circumstance with respect to a specific war should be included as valid reasons for CO status. However great their desire, this addition to the grounds for CO status has been repeatedly rejected in courts of both the European and Anglo-American legal traditions.

Some countries have evolved a separate approach avoiding conflict on the issue. At least one European country has legally defined participation in military service as only occurring on a voluntary basis. When this is so there is no legal or societal issue of conscience based objection or of legally granting of CO status. You just say, "no."

The original text also stated, “perhaps with any role in the armed forces (in which case he or she is either pacifist or antimilitarist)” that is untrue for many who object on religious grounds but are not part of the Historic Peace Churches and inconsistent with the later description of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I made the comment a sentence and added that “some” who believe…are…”

Lastly the comment about the US Supreme court broadening the grounds for CO status is true but it was decided in 1971 and the wiki text further excluded to mention its specific denial of any CO status based upon an objection to a specific war.

Hope this is acceptable. --kmh 23:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Recognition of conscientious objector status

Currently, conscientious objector status is recognized in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

I think this sentence is misleading:

• There is no explicit text in the Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights anent recognition of this status.
• The ECHR [1] states only (my emphasis):

Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
3. For the purpose of this article the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:
   1. any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
   2. any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
   3. any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
   4. any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.

I'll remove the sentence altogether, if there are no objections. (There is no use of saying "In the countries where this status is recognized, the ECHR...") --Glimz 13:42, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Categories?

When I did the merge for this page I was uncertain as to what category to place it in. There are none at the moment and I believe that a category or categories should be added.

--pgeoff 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I have seen several requests on articles in Category:Military to clean up because there are 50 sub-categories and 50 articles in there ... I created Category "Politics about Military" to group topics like Military use of children, how people get drafted into the military, gender roles in the military, and related topics. This will still be in category military, through the new sub-category. AlMac|^(talk) 16:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Peace Symbols are not appropriate for this page

The Peace Symbol is actually the ancient Norse or rune (symbol) for death. it is used commonly by persons who are practicing neo-pagans. Today the peace sign serves to represent a movement of people who have varied interests but gather under the umbrella of the peace sign, e.g. animal rights, environmentalists, etc. I cannot find any reference on the Internet to anyone that is a Conscientious Objector who accepts this sign to signify an individual. Please keep politics off this page, real Conscientious Objectors such as me find this offensive.

it's best known as the CND sign: nuclear disarmament is not the same as pacifism or conscientious objection. --GwydionM 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it you are refering to the use of the anti-war template, which is illistrated with the peace sign (which by the way orriginated with CND rather then with neo-pagans)? Are you against the template being on this page altogether (i.e are you saying that this article is not about an anti-war topic) or are you just against it because it has that sysbol on it?--JK the unwise 09:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This template has nothing to do with Conscientious Objection and is a clear political statement against current war politics in Iraq. I challenge especially the legitimacy of especially these topics listed. What do they have to do with Conscientious Objection? STOP POSTING CLEARLY POLITICAL SYMBOLS SUCH AS THE PEACE SYMBOL ON THIS PAGE.

Books
Films
Peace symbol
Protest song
Chants and slogans

?--tomtrinity7 14:10, 8 February 2006 (Switzerland)

Please try to read peoples comments and answer the questions they ask. Please see my comment bellow on why I beleive that an article on Conscientious Objection should be thought of as part of a the articles on the anti-war movment. Please see my comments on your talk page an on Template talk:Anti-war topics as to why I think use of the peace symbol is not POV pushing. --JK the unwise 15:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No matter what I say you continue to post the peace sign. Is this a dictatorship of the left? Since I am the only real certifiable C.O. posting here, this continuing struggle only shows how the biased dominate Wikipedia. There is no reasoning with this form of web disease!!! Get the Peace symbol off this page!!!

Conscientious Objectors are not the Peace Movement

This page should not become the yellow pages for the current Peace Movement. A Conscientious Objector is an individual choice of conscience and is far different than being a member of a movement or simply anti-war. While there are groups that claim to be Pacifist, this does not mean they are Conscientious Objectors. For example, several Conscientious Objectors do and have served in the military. I am formally against this page becoming a listing for persons promoting the peace movement against current or future wars. There are other pages for this. Please list organizations that are not strictly Conscientious Objector organizations (e.g. C.C.C.O.) on an anti-war page.

I agree there is a difference. I haven't removed anything, but I added a link to the Peace movement. --GwydionM 17:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Its fine for there to be a discussion here around the appropreatenes of counting a page about Conscientious objectors as part of the articles on opposition to war. However, If you have a problem with the anti-war template being on this page please only delete it from this page do not delete the template itself. If you have a problem with the template being used at all or what appears on the template (for example the peace symbol) please raise this at Template talk:Anti-war topics.

On the topic of whether this page should have the template on it. I beleive that an article about Conscientious objectors is definatly an anti-war topic being as how the basis of Conscientious objection is opposition to the war one is being asked to fight in. It might be replyed that while this is true Conscientious objectors often only object to a particular war rather then all war. This is true but this is also true of all strands of anti-war thought. Note that many of the people who marched against the Iraq war did not nessisarly beleive there should be no wars at all (see the definition of anti-war which makes this clear).

As a gesture of good faith I will not relace the template if it is removed untill we have had some discustion.--JK the unwise 15:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of text?

Whose idea was it to remove over half of the text in the article? I've salvaged the most important bits about conscientious objection in different countries and moved it to another article. Is this some kind of censorship, or just an attempt to keep the article at a manageable size? 193.167.132.66 08:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that's me, User:JIP. Wikipedia accidentally signed me out, again. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems like vandalism or censorship to me. 207.67.132.123

America

How is it that there is so much from the US on this, and so little on elsewhere? Looks like a perfect school project to me, if someone wanted to do it. I don't know enough specifics, but I do know it was made very hard to be a CO in WW1 in Britain, with hard labour in appalling conditions that killed many. During WW2, they tended to be paramedics (the law was changed after people realised how awful WW1 was), as it put them in at least equal danger. There must be a lot on this. The US stuff was interesting, and I'm sure there must be someone looking for a project....16:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask me, I could help about the Swiss situation :) --Keimzelle 22:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Only military?

Have a look at William Tebb - the assertion in the BMJ that the term was introduced into English law as a result of arguments over vaccination seems likely to be true.

Did the rest of the world follow on, or evolve the concept and laws about it independently?Midgley 18:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a subsection for Britain

The article was mostly about US experience. What happened in Britain was rather different. --GwydionM 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• There already exists an article on conscientious objection throughout the world. Should material be split off into it, or it merged to the whole? --Agamemnon2 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'd missed it, so I added a cross-link. Someone else immediately removed it. There is a standard for cross-links, isn't there?

What's really needed is a complete re-edit. The topic in general, and then specifics for each juristiction. Not just states; Britain and Ireland had different rules in World War One.

I'm also not going to do anything so big. An opportunity for someone, though.

--GwydionM 18:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've now added extra material to conscientious objection throughout the world. --GwydionM 10:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Religious motives

I added some historic background. Christian pacifism may be a minority option nowadays, but it was the original creed.

Exactly how it applied to legionaries is unclear. The martyrdom of the Theban Legion may have been because they refused to take part in pagan sacrefices. The whole event may also be fictitious, a 'pious legend'.

--GwydionM 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Atheists?

The questions do seem as though they don't take into account atheist objectors, and also I remember hearing a sad account of one atheist who was abused when he tried to be an objector. Is there a history of atheist abuse? Do atheists tend to be allowed to be conscientious objectors, or do they end up being drafted anyways?

On another note, wouldn't it be neat to mention attempts to seem insane in order to not be drafted? Citizen Premier 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Conscientious objection in Britain. In the second world war, you could usually avoid war service as an atheist with a philosophical objection to war (not necessarily pacifist).--GwydionM 18:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In United States v. Seeger 380 U. S. 163 (1965), the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the expression "religious training and belief" includes any belief which occupies the same place or role in your life as the belief of a Supreme Being does in the life of a believer. In Welsh v United States 398 U. S. 333 (1970), the Court ruled that the religious requirement could not be limited to religious based beliefs only, as this was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. So in the United States, objection to military service that are based on moral or ethical beliefs (atheist, humanist, whatever) must be given equal weight as religious beliefs. TechBear 05:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While Arndt Pekurinen had strong religious conviction, he based his objection on purely secular grounds. In this respected he could be parallelled by an atheist. He was executed in 1941 without trial because he refused from taking arms. It is widely assumed should Finland ever enter in a military crisis, a law stating death penalty from refusing to take arms will be stated immediately, and any conscientious objectors ordered to dangerous tasks, such as minesweeping.

Please give some reference for this. Finland has renounced death penalty and is party to several treaties forbidding the use of death penalty at all times. The Finnish constitution absolutely forbids the death penalty. There is no support for death penalty in any public documents on the crisis planning. The case of Arndt Pekurinen is widely condemned. At present, there are active legislative efforts by the government to clarify the war-time duties of person who have done the civil service. In the present legislation, the Finnish constitution states: "Everyone is liable to partake in the defence of the Fatherland, according to the law." The law in question is the law on readiness, which would come into force in a military or non-military crisis. According to this law, every man and woman between the ages of 16 and 65 is liable for labour duty as ordered by the labour authority. Such duty is non-military by nature and cannot be declined. However, the refusal for labour duty carries only a fine or up to six months in prison.

That for the legal standpoint. From the practical point of view, what would be the point? Finnish Defence Force has more than enough reservists as it stands. The repression of conscientous objectors would only serve to disrupt the internal cohesion and damage the Finnish image abroad. In any actual war, Finland would try to portray itself as a small democratic nation fighting against an invader. Considering the international impact of the measures you suggest, the introduction of death penalty would be counter-productive. --MPorciusCato 09:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Only military service?

A conscientious objector is a person whose beliefs are incompatible with military service - perhaps with any role in the armed forces (in which case he or she is either pacifist or antimilitarist) - or who objects to a particular war. This may constitute a conflict with conscription or service.

I have added "military" in front of "service" in this paragraph because it needed to link to the right article (it linked to service in the economic sense, not even to the disambiguation page!). However, don't some conscientious objectors object to any sort of service that furthers the war effort, such as working in an ammunitions factory or serving as a medic in the armed forces? I'm not very knowledgeable about this, but shouldn't it be mentioned that conscientious objection isn't limited to "armed" service? Tamino 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What about conscientious objection not related to war at all? For instance, the right of medical professionals to refuse to take part in an abortion, which (in the UK at least) is enshrined in law? 212.32.124.198 13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed Ali

How about a note on him? He's a very famous conscientious objector. Citizen Premier 20:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

'army chaplains' to 'military chaplains'

(Sorry, pooched the Edit Summary.) I changed it from 'army chaplains' to 'military chaplains' for the fact that the branches of the US Military have their own Chaplains. I would assume an Air Force member would possibly go infront of Air Force Chaplains, though it may be more of a matter of what Chaplains are available. If for some reason only Army chaplains are used, it may be best to make that more clear and capitalize 'Army'.--Moriar 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add this info about Iran

The true Commander of all military forces in Iran is his leader(currently
 Khameni). The leader of Iran is Waley Faqih(Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists). There some people who refuse
to serve in military due to their objections to this newly added feature to
shiism(They belive Welayat Faqih is made up like Bahism and Wahhabism by
Jews). In 2002 one of those guys send a letter to leader asking permiting him
to marry arguing he has reached puberty and no longer could resist abstinence( It is a great sin in Islam to do sex without marrying). An Objector loses all his social rights in Iran. Surprisingly the leader accepted to let them

marry. But officially if such persons are caught they will be prisoned for

around 3-4 years.You can serve your draft in prison but the military judge can
punish you more months. For some years the draft in Iran was sold officially
 from 2 to 4 thousond dallars,but this trade is stopped after recent oil boom.
  But Iranian who are aboard for more than two years can still buy it 5000 dollars. You can also lend 16000 dollars to government and get your passport.
if you dont return you will lose your money.

Anti-war template

The editor who prefers to leave the {{Anti-war}} template off of the article page suggested on my talk page that there had been agreement here to remove it. It's not that clear to me from reading this page that there was such a consensus and I would like to open the discussion for broader input. I don't feel a big stake in either keeping it or removing it; I am more concerned about the continual removal without edit summary or other comment. Some questions that come to my mind are:

• In what ways is the anti-war template incompatible with this page?
• In what ways is the anti-war template appropriate for this page?
• If the consensus is to remove it, should Conscientious objectors be removed from the template also? The editors of the template must feel it is a significant anti-war topic.

What do editors of this article feel about the appropriateness of the anti-war template? JonHarder 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The anti-war template has nothing to do with C.O.'s, it is a devisive and political symbol that does not serve to represent C.O.'s in theory nor practice. For example, I was awarded C.O. status in the military for religious reasons; by serving and by my support of the current war in Iraq shows that being a C.O. is not an anti-war topic. Being a C.O. is a position of conscience or in my case, one of faith. I share nothing in common with today's anti-war activist and resent being given this devisive mark and label to represent all C.O.'s. The peace symbol has become a signifer as an umbrella for radical political groups. The peace symbol should be removed altogether, as well as the anti-war reference, neither has any place here. Leave Conscientious Objection to those who know what it means. My problem with you Mr. Harder is you have no position and therefore should have no say; your only position here is the same as many others, that you consider yourself a wiki-policeman rather than a scholar on the subject. Do we now rule by consensus rather than the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.145.116 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the fact that this is a point of contention in the first place to be somewhat amusing, since by and large, the term "conscientious objector" is used to describe those opposed to wars. So I support having the anti-war template on the page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your amusement come from your misunderstanding and subsequent misinterpretation of the term. A C.O. is not anti-war, the position is more complex then that. Many C.O.'s have served this country during times of war. My discharge papers from the US Military state "Honorable Discharge." This was after being shackled, beaten and photographed for the amusement of those who could not accept my position. I had bruises on my body and I live with this knowledge now that I have to deal now with your "amusement." A position is backed up by sources, your support appears to be backed by something else? Being an activist is an a posteriori consideration to being a C.O. A C.O. is not an activist and is not anti-war. As a C.O. I support the current war in Iraq, could your non-support of the war be your motive for your support of the template? If you want to be an activist, do it somewhere else and leave the conscientious objection to the conscientious objectors. This is why wikipedia gets so much criticism because the scholars or actors who know the subject first-hand are consistently edited by persons with agendas or little to no knowledge of the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.145.116 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If I am interpreting this discussion correctly, 209.30.145.116 objects to the anti-war template because it includes topics about the activities of anti-war activists, some of whom are seen in a bad light as radicals. In addition, the peace symbol is negatively associated with anti-war activism. 209.30.145.116 sees conscientious objection as separate and distinct from activism and the two should not be confused. To Schuminweb, objecting to military service implies objecting to war which is equivalent to anti-war. The latter position, as Schuminweb notes, is logical. The former position is based on personal experience; that view is not developed in the article itself. I have some empathy for that position: I believe a good segment of WWII conscientious objectors in North America do not identify with today's anti-war movement (I have no supporting source though) while the following generation is more activist.

I personally don't have a problem with the peace symbol and at this point am leaning toward inclusion of the template.

With respect to the consensus question, it is the prefered Wikipedia route to decision making. The process works best when we assume good faith of other editors and invite their contributions, even if we might disagree. It's disappointing be told that my thoughts aren't wanted here. Of the 35 references and notes listed at the end of the article, I added 21 by my count, so my contributions to the sourced parts of this article have been non-trivial. JonHarder 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am calling you out Mr. Harder and the others, what are your credentials and interest in editing here? Are you a conscientious objector? Are you interested in the subject matter? Are you an activist? There is no good faith here since the template dicatates the process; the page with the photo of the C.O. at the top of the page better demonstrates that being a C.O. is an INDIVIDUAL choice of conscience and has no affiliations other than an internal philosophy of mind, religion or self. If there was good faith here, the decision to remove the template would be honored and we would not be having this conversation. Should the C.O.s maintain their own reputation or allow revisional web users and wiki-police dictate their public perception with peace symbols and the like? Simply put, I am a C.O.; are you? According to you I am nothing more than a "vandal", see the irony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.217.37 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to stay on-topic here, I think what you are saying is that since conscientious objection is an individual, personal choice it shouldn't be associated with the anti-war template because that template is for organized anti-war movements. Is that what you are trying to say? As for honoring a past decision on this page, I believe it is: JK the unwise promised not remove the template until there has been more discussion, and I believe he has honored that. Whether and editor of this article is a CO or not, an activist or not, all are welcome to contribute to making this a better article and to join in the discussion. Excellent, dedicated editors will be found among all of those persuasions. JonHarder 01:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. By your own claims you cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. None of you know what it means to be a C.O., so you are providing web-myths to validate your revisionist claims. There is no agreement or middle ground between the truth and a lie. The template is the serpent in this garden of wiki-lies. So what is the truth Mr. Harder, are you an activist or a C.O.? Why not let a C.O. speak for the C.O.'s? The truth of conscientious objection has nothing to do with the template or the peace symbol. The template and peace symbol are web-lies when associated with conscientious objection and I call them what they are. Why would you support a lie Mr. Harder? Not in my house! C.O.'s are people, not symbols!

Prior Enlistment References

Any reference to conscientious-objectors who have tried to gain that status after enlisting should be removed. If you willingly enlist in a Military service you cannont be a C-O because you have already agreed to being in possible combat or cambat area. Izzy1985 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with removal on that basis because I think people can form new convictions at any stage in life. JonHarder 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)