“I… a universe of atoms… an atom in the universe,” the Nobel-winning physicist Richard Feynman wrote in his lovely prose poem about evolution. “The fact that we are connected through space and time,” evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis observed of the interconnectedness of the universe, “shows that life is a unitary phenomenon, no matter how we express that fact.”
A century before Feynman and Margulis, the great Scottish-American naturalist and pioneering environmental philosopher John Muir (April 21, 1838–December 24, 1914) channeled this elemental fact of existence with uncommon poetic might in John Muir: Nature Writings (public library) — a timeless treasure I revisited in composing The Universe in Verse. John Muir
Recounting the epiphany he had while hiking Yosemite’s Cathedral Peak
for the first time in the summer of his thirtieth year — an epiphany
strikingly similar to the one Virginia Woolf had at the moment she understood what it means to be an artist — Muir writes:
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it
hitched to everything else in the universe. One fancies a heart like our
own must be beating in every crystal and cell, and we feel like
stopping to speak to the plants and animals as friendly fellow
mountaineers. Nature as a poet, an enthusiastic workingman, becomes more
and more visible the farther and higher we go; for the mountains are
fountains — beginning places, however related to sources beyond mortal
ken.
One is constantly reminded of the infinite lavishness and
fertility of Nature — inexhaustible abundance amid what seems enormous
waste. And yet when we look into any of her operations that lie within
reach of our minds, we learn that no particle of her material is wasted
or worn out. It is eternally flowing from use to use, beauty to yet
higher beauty; and we soon cease to lament waste and death, and rather
rejoice and exult in the imperishable, unspendable wealth of the
universe, and faithfully watch and wait the reappearance of everything
that melts and fades and dies about us, feeling sure that its next
appearance will be better and more beautiful than the last.
[…]
More and more, in a place like this, we feel ourselves part of wild Nature, kin to everything.
One of Chiura Obata’s paintings of Yosemite
A year earlier, during his famous thousand-mile walk to the Gulf of
Mexico, Muir recorded his observations and meditations in a notebook
inscribed John Muir, Earth-Planet, Universe. In one of the
entries from this notebook, the twenty-nine-year-old Muir counters the
human hubris of anthropocentricity in a sentiment far ahead of his time
and, in many ways, ahead of our own as we grapple with our responsibility to the natural world. More than a century before Carl Sagan reminded us that we, like all creatures, are “made of starstuff,” Muir humbles us into our proper place in the cosmic order:
The universe would be incomplete without man; but it
would also be incomplete without the smallest transmicroscopic creature
that dwells beyond our conceitful eyes and knowledge… The fearfully
good, the orthodox, of this laborious patchwork of modern civilization
cry “Heresy” on every one whose sympathies reach a single hair’s breadth
beyond the boundary epidermis of our own species. Not content with
taking all of earth, they also claim the celestial country as the only
ones who possess the kind of souls for which that imponderable empire
was planned.
This star, our own good earth, made many a successful
journey around the heavens ere man was made, and whole kingdoms of
creatures enjoyed existence and returned to dust ere man appeared to
claim them. After human beings have also played their part in Creation’s
plan, they too may disappear without any general burning or
extraordinary commotion whatever.
However disquieting and corrosive to the human ego such awareness may
be, Muir argues that we can never be conscientious citizens of the
universe unless we accept this fundamental cosmic reality. In our
chronic civilizational denial of it, we are denying nature itself — we
are denying, in consequence, our own humanity. A century before the inception of the modern environmental movement, he writes:
No dogma taught by the present civilization seems to form
so insuperable an obstacle in the way of a right understanding of the
relations which culture sustains to wildness as that which regards the
world as made especially for the uses of man. Every animal, plant, and
crystal controverts it in the plainest terms. Yet it is taught from
century to century as something ever new and precious, and in the
resulting darkness the enormous conceit is allowed to go unchallenged.
I have never yet happened upon a trace of evidence that seemed to
show that any one animal was ever made for another as much as it was
made for itself. Not that Nature manifests any such thing as selfish
isolation. In the making of every animal the presence of every other
animal has been recognized. Indeed, every atom in creation may be said
to be acquainted with and married to every other, but with universal
union there is a division sufficient in degree for the purposes of the
most intense individuality; no matter, therefore, what may be the note
which any creature forms in the song of existence, it is made first for
itself, then more and more remotely for all the world and worlds.
Illustration by Oliver Jeffers from Here We Are: Notes for Living on Planet Earth
This revelatory sense of interconnectedness comes over Muir again a
decade later, as he journeys to British Columbia on a steamer in the
spring of 1879, experiencing for the first time the otherworldly wonder
and might of the open ocean. A century after William Blake saw the universe in a grain of sand, Muir writes:
The scenery of the ocean, however sublime in vast
expanse, seems far less beautiful to us dry-shod animals than that of
the land seen only in comparatively small patches; but when we
contemplate the whole globe as one great dewdrop, striped and dotted
with continents and islands, flying through space with other stars all
singing and shining together as one, the whole universe appears as an
infinite storm of beauty.
On March 8, 1995, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1995/83 stated that "persons performing military service
should not be excluded from the right to have conscientious objections
to military service." This was re-affirmed in 1998, when resolution 1998/77 recognized that "persons [already] performing military service may develop conscientious objections." A number of organizations around the world celebrate the principle on May 15 as International Conscientious Objectors Day. The term has also been extended to objecting to working for the military–industrial complex due to a crisis of conscience.
History
Many
conscientious objectors have been executed, imprisoned, or otherwise
penalized 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 objector status.
The first recorded conscientious objector, Maximilianus,
was conscripted into the Roman army in the year 295, but "told the
Proconsul in Numidia that because of his religious convictions he could
not serve in the military." He was executed for this, and was later
canonized as Saint Maximilian.
An early recognition of conscientious objection was granted by William the Silent to the Dutch Mennonites in 1575. They could refuse military service in exchange for a monetary payment.
Formal legislation to exempt objectors from fighting was first granted in mid-18th century Great Britain following problems with attempting to force Quakers into military service. In 1757, when the first attempt was made to establish a British Militia
as a professional national military reserve, a clause in the Militia
Ballot Act allowed Quakers exemption from military service.
In the United States,
conscientious objection was permitted from the country's founding,
although regulation was left to individual states prior to the
introduction of conscription.
Everyone has the right to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community
with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions.
In 1976, the United Nations treaty the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsentered into force.
It was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and was
originally created in 1966. Nations that have signed this treaty are
bound by it. Its Article 18 begins: "Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion. ..."
However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
left the issue of conscientious objection inexplicit, as we see in this
quote from War Resisters International:
"Article 18 of the Covenant does put some limits on the right [to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion], stating that [its]
manifestations must not infringe on public safety, order, health or
morals. Some states argue that such limitations [on the right to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion] would [derivatively] permit them
to make conscientious objection during time of war a threat to public
safety, or mass conscientious objection a disruption to public
order,...[Some states] even [argue] that it is a 'moral' duty to serve
the state in its military."
On July 30, 1993, explicit clarification of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18 was made in the United
Nations Human Rights Committee
general comment 22, Paragraph 11: "The Covenant does not explicitly
refer to a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee believes
that such a right can be derived from article 18, inasmuch as the
obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom
of conscience and the right to manifest one's religion or belief."
In 2006, the Committee has found for the first time a right to
conscientious objection under article 18, although not unanimously.
In 1997, an announcement of Amnesty International's forthcoming campaign and briefing for the UN Commission on Human Rights
included this quote: "The right to conscientious objection to military
service is not a marginal concern outside the mainstream of
international human rights protection and promotion."
In 1998, the Human Rights Commission reiterated previous
statements and added "states should . . . refrain from subjecting
conscientious objectors . . . to repeated punishment for failure to
perform military service."
It also encouraged states "to consider granting asylum to those
conscientious objectors compelled to leave their country of origin
because they fear persecution owing to their refusal to perform military
service . . . ."
171. Not every conviction, genuine though it may be, will constitute a sufficient reason for claiming refugee status after desertion
or draft-evasion. It is not enough for a person to be in disagreement
with his government regarding the political justification for a
particular military action. Where, however, the type of military action,
with which an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned
by the international community
as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion
or draft-evasion could, in the light of all other requirements of the
definition, in itself be regarded as persecution.
On June 4, 1967, John Courtney Murray, an American Jesuitpriest and theologian, delivered an address at Western Maryland College
concerning a more specific type of conscientious objection: "the issue
of selective conscientious objection, conscientious objection to
particular wars, or as it is sometimes called, discretionary armed
service."
On March 8, 1971, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Gillette v. United States
that "the exemption for those who oppose "participation in war in any
form" applies to those who oppose participating in all war and not to
those who object to participation in a particular war only."
On May 25, 2005, journalist Jack Random wrote the following: "The case of Sergeant Kevin Benderman (Iraq War Resister)
raises the burning issue of selective conscientious objection: While it
is universally accepted that an individual cannot be compelled against
conscience to war in general, does the same hold for an individual who
objects, in the depths of the soul, to a particular war?"
Religious motives
Cases of behavior which could be considered as religiously motivated
conscientious objection are historically attested long before the modern
term appeared. For example, the Medieval Orkneyinga Saga mentions that Magnus Erlendsson, Earl of Orkney –
the future Saint Magnus – had a reputation for piety and gentleness,
and because of his religious convictions refused to fight in a Viking
raid on Anglesey, Wales, instead staying on board his ship singing psalms.
The reasons for refusing to perform military service are varied. Many conscientious objectors cite religious reasons. Unitarian Universalists object to war in their sixth principle "The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all". Members of the Historic Peace Churches such as Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, Old Order Mennonite, Conservative Mennonites, the Bruderhof Communities and Church of the Brethren object to war from the conviction that Christian life is incompatible with military action, because Jesus enjoins his followers to love their enemies and to refuse violence. Since the American Civil War, Seventh-day Adventists
have been known as non-combatants, and have done work in hospitals or
to give medical care rather than combat roles, and the church has upheld
the non-combative position. Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians,
refuse to participate in the armed services on the grounds that they
believe they should be neutral in worldly conflicts and often cite the
latter portion of Isaiah 2:4
which states, "...neither shall they learn war anymore." Other
objections can stem from a deep sense of responsibility toward humanity
as a whole, or from simple denial that any government possesses the moral authority to command warlike behavior from its citizens.
The varied experiences of non-combatants are illustrated by those
of Seventh-day Adventists when there was mandatory military service:
"Many Seventh-day Adventists refuse to enter the army as combatants, but
participate as medics, ambulance drivers, etc. During World War II in
Germany, many SDA conscientious objectors were sent to concentration
camps or mental institutions; some were executed. Some Seventh-day
Adventists volunteered for the US Army's Operation Whitecoat,
participating in research to help others. The Church preferred to call
them "conscientious participants", because they were willing to risk
their lives as test subjects in potentially life-threatening research.
Over 2,200 Seventh-day Adventists volunteered in experiments involving
various infectious agents during the 1950s through the 1970s in Fort
Detrick, MD. " Earlier, a schism
arose during and after World War I between Seventh-day Adventists in
Germany who agreed to serve in the military if conscripted and those who
rejected all participation in warfare — the latter group eventually
forming a separate church (the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement).
In as much as they [Jesus'
teachings] ruled out as illicit all use of violence and injury against
others, clearly implied [was] the illegitimacy of participation in
war... The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his
inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense.
They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly
condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved.
— The Early Christian Attitude to War.
After the Roman Empire officially embraced Christianity, the Just War
theology was developed in order to reconcile warfare with Christian
belief. After Theodosius I made Christianity an official religion of the
Empire, this position slowly developed into the official position of
the Western Church. 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. Some theologians see the Constantinian shift and the loss of Christian pacifism as a great failing of the Church.
Ben Salmon
was a Catholic conscientious objector during World War I and outspoken
critic of Just War theology. The Catholic Church denounced him and The New York Times
described him as a "spy suspect." The US military (in which he was
never inducted) charged him with desertion and spreading propaganda,
then sentenced him to death (this was later revised to 25 years hard
labor). On June 5, 1917, Salmon wrote in a letter to President Wilson:
Regardless of nationality, all men
are brothers. God is "our Father who art in heaven." The commandment
"Thou shalt not kill" is unconditional and inexorable. ... The lowly
Nazarene taught us the doctrine of non-resistance, and so convinced was
he of the soundness of that doctrine that he sealed his belief with
death on the cross. When human law conflicts with Divine law, my duty is
clear. Conscience, my infallible guide, impels me to tell you that
prison, death, or both, are infinitely preferable to joining any branch
of the Army.
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. In Armenia,
young Jehovah's Witnesses were imprisoned because of their
conscientious objection to military service; this was discontinued in
November 2013. The government of South Korea also imprisons hundreds for refusing the draft. 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 Indian religions, the opposition to warfare may be based on either the general idea of ahimsa, nonviolence, 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
has stated that war "should be relegated to the dustbin of history." On
the other hand, many Buddhist sects, especially in Japan, have been
thoroughly militarized, warrior monks (yamabushi or sōhei) participating in the civil wars. Hindu beliefs do not go against the concept of war, as seen in the Gita. Both Sikhs and Hindus believe war should be a last resort and should be fought to sustain life and morality in society.
Bahá'ís
are advised to do social service instead of active army service, but
when this is not possible because of obligations in certain countries,
the Bahá'í law of loyalty to one's government is preferred and the individual should perform the army service.
Some practitioners of pagan religions, particularly Wicca, may object on the grounds of the Wiccan rede, which states "An it harm none, do what ye will" (or variations). The threefold law may also be grounds for objection.
A notable example of a conscientious objector was the Austrian devout Roman Catholic Christian Franz Jägerstätter, who was executed on August 9, 1943 for openly refusing to serve in the Nazi Wehrmacht, consciously accepting the penalty of death. He was declared Blessed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 for dying for his beliefs, and is viewed as a symbol of self-sacrificing resistance.
Alternatives for objectors
Some
conscientious objectors are unwilling to serve the military in any
capacity, while others accept noncombatant roles. While conscientious
objection is usually the refusal to collaborate with military
organizations, as a combatant in war or in any supportive role, some
advocate compromising forms of conscientious objection. One compromising
form is to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service.
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.
Conservative Mennonites do not object to serving their country in peaceful alternatives (alternative service)
such as hospital work, farming, forestry, road construction and similar
occupations. Their objection is in being part in any military capacity
whether noncombatant or regular service. During World War II and the
Korean, Vietnam war eras they served in many such capacities in
alternative I-W service programs initially through the Mennonite Central
Committee and now through their own alternatives.
Despite the fact that international institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and the Council of Europe (CoE) regard and promote conscientious objection as a human right, as of 2004,
it still does not have a legal basis in most countries. Among the
roughly one-hundred countries that have conscription, only thirty
countries have some legal provisions, 25 of them in Europe. In Europe,
most countries with conscription more or less fulfill international
guidelines on conscientious objection legislation (except for Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Finland and Russia) today. In many countries outside Europe, especially in armed conflict areas (e.g. Democratic Republic of the Congo), conscientious objection is punished severely.
While conscientious objectors used to be seen as deserters,
traitors, cowards, slackers or simply un-patriotic, their image has
changed drastically in the Western world in past decades.
Especially in Europe, where objectors usually serve an alternative
civilian service, they are regarded as making an equally important
contribution to society as conscripts. Parallel to that, the number of objectors has risen significantly, too: e.g., in Germany,
where conscientious objection is a constitutional right, from less than
one percent of all eligible men to more than fifty percent in 2003. In
1991, The Peace Abbey established the National Registry for
Conscientious Objection where people can publicly state their refusal to
participate in armed conflict.
Conscientious objection around the world
Belgium
Conscription was mandatory to all able-bodied Belgian
males until 1994, when it was suspended. Civilian service was possible
since 1963. Objectors could apply for the status of conscience objector.
When granted, they did an alternative service with the civil service or
with a socio-cultural organisation. The former would last 1.5 times as
long as the shortest military service, the latter twice as long.
After their service, objectors are not allowed to take jobs that
require them to carry weapons, such as police jobs, until the age of 42.
Since conscription was suspended in 1994 and military service is
voluntary, the status of conscience objector can not be granted anymore
in Belgium.
Canada
Mennonites and other similar peace churches in Canada were automatically exempt from any type of service during Canada's involvement in World War I by provisions of the Order in Council
of 1873 yet initially, many were imprisoned until the matter was again
resettled. With pressure of public opinion, the Canadian government
barred entry of additional Mennonite and Hutterite immigrants, rescinding the privileges of the Order in Council. During Canada's involvement in World War II,
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 labour shortage developed within the
nation and another Conscription Crisis
burgeoned, men were shifted into agriculture, education and industry.
The 10,700 Canadian objectors were mostly Mennonites (63%) and Dukhobors (20%).
Colombia
Conscientious
objection is not recognised in Colombia, which has occasionally
resulted of the detention and forced recruitment of those who refuse the
draft. This is despite the fact that the Colombia constitutional court
has ruled that conscientious objection is protected by the constitution
in 2012. War Resisters' International's report on conscientious objection in Colombia Before being ruled unconstitutional by the court as illegal in Sentence T-455/14, people were at risk of batidas
- raids in the street and public spaces - where young people were
rounded up and forcibly recruited if they could not prove they had
already undergone military service.
Czechoslovakia
In Czechoslovakia,
those not willing to enter mandatory military service could avoid it by
signing a contract for work lasting years in unattractive occupations,
such as mining. Those who didn't sign were imprisoned. Both numbers were
tiny. After the communist party lost its power in 1989, alternative civil service was established. As of 2006, both the Czech Republic and Slovakia have abolished conscription.
Denmark
Any
male getting drafted, but unwilling to serve, has the ability to avoid
military service by instead serving community service for the duration
of the conscription.
Eritrea
There
is no right to conscientious objection to military service in Eritrea -
which is of an indefinite length - and those who refuse the draft are
imprisoned. Some Jehovah's Witness conscientious objectors have been in
jail since 1994.
Finland
Finland introduced conscription in 1881, but its enforcement was suspended in 1903 as part of Russification. During the Finnish Civil War
in 1918, conscription was reintroduced for all able-bodied men. In
1922, the option of noncombatant military service was introduced, but
service in the military remained compulsory on pain of imprisonment.
After the struggle of pacifist Arndt Pekurinen a law was passed providing for a peacetime-only alternative to military service, or civilian service (Finnish siviilipalvelus). The law was dubbed "Lex Pekurinen" after him. During the Winter War,
Pekurinen and other conscientious objectors were imprisoned, and
Pekurinen was eventually executed at the front in 1941, during the Continuation War.
After the war, a conscientious objector's civilian service lasted
16 months, whereas military service was 8 months at its shortest. To
qualify for civilian service, an objector had to explain his conviction
before a board of inspection that included military officers and
clergymen. In 1987, the duration of the service was shortened to 13
months and the board of inspection was abolished. In 2008, the term was
further shortened to 12 months to match the duration of the longest
military service (that of officer trainees and technical crew). Today, a
person subject to conscription may apply for civilian service at any
time before or during his military service, and the application is
accepted as a matter of course. A female performing voluntary military
service can quit her service anytime during the first 45 days, however,
if she wants to quit after those 45 days she would be treated like a
male and assigned to civilian service.
Persons who have completed their civilian service during
peacetime have, according to the legislation enacted in 2008, the right
to serve in non-military duties also during a crisis situation. They may
be called to serve in various duties with the rescue services or other
necessary work of a non-military nature. Persons who declare themselves
to be conscientious objectors only after a crisis has started must,
however, prove their conviction before a special board. Before the new
legislation, the right to conscientious objection was acknowledged only
in peacetime. The changes to the service term and to the legal status of
objectors during a crisis situation were made as a response to human
rights concerns voiced by several international bodies,
who are overseeing the implementation of human rights agreements. These
organisations had demanded Finland to take measures to improve its
legislation concerning conscientious objectors, which they considered
discriminatory. None of these organisations have yet raised concerns on
the current legislation.
There are a small number of total objectors who refuse even
civilian service, and are imprisoned for six months. This is not
registered into the person's criminal record.
France
Stamp created by the Centre de défense des objecteurs de conscience (around 1936).
The creation of a legal status for conscientious objectors in France
was the subject of a long struggle involving for instance or the
much-publicised trials of Protestant activists Jacques Martin, Philippe Vernier and Camille Rombault in 1932–1933 or the hunger strike of anarchistLouis Lecoin in 1962.
The legal status law was passed in December 1963, 43 years (and many prison sentences) after the first requests.
In 1983, a new law passed by socialist Interior Minister Pierre Joxe
considerably improved this status, simplifying the conditions under
which the status would be granted. Conscientious objectors were then
free to choose an activity in the social realm where they would spend
their civil service time. However, in order to avoid too many
applications for civil service at the expense of the military, the
duration of the civil service is however kept twice as long as the
military service.
The effect of these laws was suspended in 2001 when compulsory
military service was abolished in France. The special prison at
Strasbourg for Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse to join any military, was
also abolished.
Since 1986, the associations defending conscientious objection in France have chosen to celebrate their cause on 15 May.
Germany
Under the Nazis, conscientious objection was not recognized in the
law. In theory, objectors would be drafted and then court-martialled for
desertion. The practice was even harsher: going beyond the letter of an
already extremely flexible law, conscientious objection was considered subversion of military strength,
a crime normally punished with death. On September 15, 1939 August
Dickmann, a Jehovah's Witness, and the first conscientious objector of
the war to be executed, died by a firing squad at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Among others, Franz Jägerstätter
was executed after his conscientious objection, on the grounds that he
could not fight in the forces of the evil side. He is now somewhat the
patron saint of conscientious objectors.
After World War II, there was no official right to conscientious objection in the German Democratic Republic.
Nevertheless, and uniquely among the Eastern bloc, objections were
accepted and the objectors assigned to construction units. They were
however part of the military, so that a fully civilian alternative did
not exist. Also, "construction soldiers" were discriminated against in their later professional life.
According to Article 4(3) of the German constitution (Grundgesetz):
"No person may be forced against their conscience to perform armed
military service. Details shall be regulated by a federal law."
According to Article 12a, a law may be passed to require every male from the age of 18 to military service called Wehrdienst; also, a law can require conscientious objectors to perform non-military service instead called Wehrersatzdienst, literally "military replacement service", or colloquially Zivildienst. These laws were applicable and demanded compulsory service in the German Bundeswehr
until the abolition of draft in 2011. Initially, conscientious
objectors each had to appear in person to a panel hearing at the draft
office (or contest a negative decision at the administrative court).
The suspension of the procedure (1977), allowing to "object with a post
card", was ruled unconstitutional in 1978. Beginning in 1983,
competence was shifted to the Kreiswehrersatzamt (military
replacement office), which had discretion to either approve or reject a
conscientious objection, which had to consist of a detailed written
statement by an applicant giving reasons as to why the applicant was
conscientiously objecting. This was generally just a formality, and
objections were not often rejected. In later years in particular
however, with the rise of the Internet, conscientious objections fell
into disrepute because of the ease of being able to simply download
existing example objections. It earned some conscientious objections the
suspicion of an applicant simply attempting an easy way out of military
service. On the other hand, certain organizations within the German
peace movement had been offering pamphlets for decades giving
suggestions to applicants as to the proper wording and structure of an
objection which would have the greatest chances of success.
Following a 1985 Federal Constitution Court decision,
Wehrersatzdienst could be no simple choice of convenience for an
applicant, but he had to cite veritable conflict of conscience which
made him unable to perform any kind of military service at all. If there
was doubt about the true nature of an objector's application, he could
be summoned to appear before a panel at the Kreiswehrersatzamt to
explain his reasons in person. An approved conscientious objection in
any case then meant that an applicant was required by law to perform
Wehrersatzdienst. Complete objection both to military and replacement
service was known as Totalverweigerung; it was illegal and could be punished with a fine or a suspended custodial sentence.
Nearly the only legal way to get both out of military service and
replacement service was to be deemed physically unfit for military
service. Both men who entered military service and those who wanted to
go into replacement service had to pass a military physical examination
at the military replacement office. Five categories/levels of physical
fitness, or Tauglichkeitsstufen, existed. Tauglichkeitsstufe 5, in short T5, meant that a person was rejected for military service and thus also did not need to enter replacement service. T5
status was usually only granted if a person had physical or mental
disabilities or was otherwise significantly impaired, such as due to
very poor eyesight or debilitating chronic illnesses.
Another way to get out of service completely was the two brothers rule,
which stated that if two older brothers had already served in the
military, any following male children of a family were exempt from
service.
Due to West Berlin's
special status between the end of the Second World War and 1990 as a
city governed by foreign military powers, draft did not apply within its
borders. This made Berlin a safe haven for many young people who chose
to move to the city to prevent criminal court repercussions for Totalverweigerung. As Totalverweigerer
were often part of the far-left political spectrum, this was one factor
which spawned a politically active left-wing and left-wing radical
scene in the city.
Wehrersatzdienst was for a long time considerably longer than
military service, by up to a third, even when the duration of service
was gradually reduced following reunification and the end of the Cold
War. This was held by some as a violation of constitutional principles,
but was upheld in several court decisions based on the reasoning that
former service personnel could be redrafted for military exercises
called Wehrübungen, while somebody who had served out his
replacement service could not. Moreover, work conditions under military
service typically involved more hardship and inconvenience than
Wehrersatzdienst. In 2004, military service and Wehrersatzdienst were
then made to last equal lengths of time.
Military service and draft were controversial during much of
their existence. Reasons included the consideration that Germans could
be made to fight against their fellow Germans in East Germany. Moreover,
draft only applied to men, which was seen as gender based
discrimination by some, but was often countered by the argument that
women usually gave up their careers either temporarily or permanently to
raise their children. With the end of the Cold War and the German
military's primary purpose of defending its home territory increasingly
looking doubtful, draft also began to become more arbitrary, as only
certain portions of a particular birth year were drafted (usually those
in very healthy physcial condition), while others weren't. This was seen
as a problem of Wehrgerechtigkeit, or equal justice of military service.
Then-German President Roman Herzog
said in a 1994 speech (which was frequently cited as an argument for
draft abolition) that only the necessity for national defense, not any
other arguments can justify draft. On the other hand, this logic tended
to not be extended to men serving Wehrersatzdienst, as they usually
worked in fields of public health, elderly care,
medical assistance or assistance for the disabled. Their relatively
low-paid work was seen as an ever more important backbone of a health
sector which was grappling with rapidly increasing costs of care.
Draft was finally abolished in Germany in 2011, mainly due to a
perceived lack of aforementioned necessity. The German Bundeswehr now
solely relies on service members who deliberately choose it as a career
path. Neither Article 12a (establishing the possibility of draft) nor
Article 4 (3) (permitting conscientious objection) have been removed
from the German Constitution. In theory, this makes a full reversion to
draft (and Wehrersatzdienst) possible if it is thought to be necessary.
Israel
All Israeli citizens and permanent residents are liable to military
service. However, the Ministry of Defense has used its discretion under
article 36 of this law to automatically exempt all non-Jewish women and
all Arab men, except for the Druze, from military service ever since
Israel was established. Israeli Arabs may volunteer to perform military
service, but very few do so (except among the Bedouin population of
Israel).
In discussing the status of the armed forces shortly after the
founding of the State of Israel, representatives of orthodox religious
parties argued that yeshiva students should be exempt from military
service. This derives from the Jewish tradition that if a man wants to
dedicate his life to religious study, society must allow him to do so.
The request of orthodox political parties to 'prevent neglect of
studying the Torah' was granted by the authorities. But in recent years
this exemption practice has become the subject of debate in Israeli
society, as the absolute and the relative numbers of the men who
received this exemption rose sharply. In 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in the case of Ressler et al. v. The Knesset et al.. that the blanket exemption granted to ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students was ultra vires
the authority of the Minister of Defence, and that it violated Basic
Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and was, therefore, unconstitutional.
As for conscientious objection, in 2002, in the case of David Zonschein et al. v. Military Advocate General et al.,
the Supreme Court reiterated its position that selective conscientious
objection was not permitted, adding that conscientious objection could
only be recognized in cases of general objection to military service.
Women can claim exemption from military service on grounds of
conscience under arts. 39 (c) and 40 of the Defense Service Law,
according to which religious reasons can be grounds for exemption.
Italy
Until 2004 conscription was mandatory to all able-bodied Italian
males. Those who were born in the last months of the year typically
used to serve in the Navy, unless judged unable for ship service (in
this case they could be sent back to Army or Air Force). Until 1972,
objectors were considered as traitors
and tried by a military tribunal; after 1972, objectors could choose an
alternative civilian service, which was eight months longer than
standard military service (fifteen months, then twelve, as for Army and
Air Force, 24 months, then eighteen, then twelve as for the Navy).
Since such length was judged too punitive, an arrangement was made to
make the civilian service as long as the military service. Since 2004,
Italian males no longer need to object because military service has been
turned into volunteer for both males and females.
Marshall Islands
In the Republic of the Marshall Islands
no person can be conscripted if, after being afforded a reasonable
opportunity to do so, he has established that he is a conscientious
objector to participation in war (Marshall Islands Constitution Article
II Section 11).
Romania
In Romania, as of 23 October 2006 conscription was suspended, therefore, the status of conscience objector does not apply. This came about due to a 2003 constitutional amendment which allowed the parliament to make military service optional. The Romanian Parliament
voted to abolish conscription in October 2005, with the vote
formalizing one of many military modernization and reform programs that
Romania agreed to when it joined NATO.
Russia
The Russian Empire allowed Russian Mennonites to run and maintain forestry service
units in South Russia in lieu of their military obligation. The program
was under church control from 1881 through 1918, reaching a peak of
seven thousand conscientious objectors during World War I. An additional
five thousand Mennonites formed complete hospital units and transport
wounded from the battlefield to Moscow and Ekaterinoslav hospitals.
After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Leon Trotsky issued a decree allowing alternative service for religious objectors whose sincerity was determined upon examination. Vladimir Chertkov, a follower of Leo Tolstoy, chaired the United Council of Religious Fellowships and Groups, which successfully freed 8000 conscientious objectors from military service during the Russian Civil War. The law was not applied uniformly and hundreds of objectors were imprisoned and over 200 were executed.The United Council was forced to cease activity in December 1920, but alternative service was available under the New Economic Policy until it was abolished in 1936.
Unlike the earlier forestry and hospital service, later conscientious
objectors were classified "enemies of the people" and their alternate
service was performed in remote areas in a gulag-like environment in order to break their resistance and encourage enlistment.
In the present day,
Russian draft legislation allows people to choose an alternative
civilian service for religious or ideological reasons. Most objectors
are employed in healthcare, construction, forestry and post industries,
serving 18 to 21 months.
South Africa
During the 1980s, hundreds of South African white males dodged the draft, refused the call-up or objected to conscription in the South African Defence Force. Some simply deserted, or joined organisations such as the End Conscription Campaign, an anti-war movement banned in 1988, while 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.
South Korea
The
terminology conscientious objector technically has not existed in
Korean dictionary until recently. In fact, significant majority of
Korean citizens simply associate conscientious objectors with draft
dodging, and are unaware of the fact that conscientious objector
draftees in other westernized countries are required to serve in
alternative services. Since the establishment of the Republic of Korea,
thousands of conscientious objectors had no choice but to be imprisoned
as criminals. Every year about 500 young men, mostly Jehovah's
Witnesses, are arrested for refusing the draft.
South Korea's stance has drawn criticism from The U.N. Human
Rights Committee, which argues that South Korea is violating article 18
of the ICCPR, which guarantees freedom of thought and conscience. In
2006, 2010, and again in 2011 the U.N. Human Rights Committee, after
reviewing petitions from South Korean conscientious objectors, declared
that the government was violating Article 18 of the ICCPR, the provision
that guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion.
The government's National Action Plan (NAP)
for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights has not shown a clear
stance on the pressing human rights issues such as, among other things,
the rights of conscientious objectors to military service.
In September 2007 the government announced a program to give
conscientious objectors an opportunity to participate in alternative
civilian service.
The program stipulates three years of civilian service that is not
connected with the military in any way. However, that program has been
postponed indefinitely after the succeeding administration took office
in 2008.
The government argues that introducing an alternative service
would jeopardize national security and undermine social equality and
cohesion. This is amid an increasing number of countries which retain
compulsory service have introduced alternatives. In addition, some
countries, including those with national security concerns have shown
that alternative service can be successfully implemented.
On January 15, 2009, the Korean Presidential Commission on
Suspicious Deaths in the Military released its decision acknowledging
that the government was responsible for the deaths of five young men,
who were Jehovah's Witnesses and had forcibly been conscripted into the
army.
The deaths resulted from "the state's anti-human rights violence" and
"its acts of brutality" during the 1970s that continued into the
mid-1980s. This decision is significant since it is the first one
recognizing the state's responsibility for deaths resulting from
violence within the military.
According to the Commission's decision, "the beatings and acts of
brutality committed against them by military officials were attempts to
compel and coerce them to act against their conscience (religion) and
were unconstitutional, anti-human rights acts that infringed severely
upon the freedom of conscience (religion) guaranteed in the
Constitution."
The records of conscientious objectors to military service are
kept by a governmental investigative body as criminal files for five
years. As a consequence, conscientious objectors are not allowed to
enter a government office and apply for any type of national
certification exam. It is also very unlikely that they will be employed
by any company that inquires about criminal records.
Conscientious objectors ... often
spend the rest of their lives tainted by their decision... Criminal
records from draft dodging make it difficult for objectors to find good
jobs and the issue of army service is often raised by potential
employers during job interviews.
From 2000 to 2008, Korean Military Manpower Administration said that
at least 4,958 men have objected to service in the military because of
religious beliefs. Among those, 4,925 were Jehovah's Witnesses, 3 were
Buddhists, and the other 30 refused the mandatory service because of
conscientious objections other than religious reasons.
Since 1950, there have been more than 16,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
sentenced to a combined total of 31,256 years for refusing to perform
military service. If alternative service is not provided, some 500 to
900 young men will continue to be added each year to the list of
conscientious objectors criminalized in Korea.
In 2015, Lee Yeda was the first conscientious objector to be allowed to live in France via asylum.
In June 2018, the Constitutional Court ruled 6-3 that Article 5
of the country’s Military Service Act is unconstitutional because it
fails to provide an alternative civilian national service for
conscientious objectors. As of 2018, 19,300 South Korean conscientious
objectors had gone to prison since 1953. The Defense Ministry said it
would honor the ruling by introducing alternative services as soon as
possible.
Spain
Conscientious objection was not permitted in Francoist Spain.
Conscientious objectors usually refused to serve on religious grounds,
such as being Jehovah's Witnesses, and were placed in prison for the
duration of their sentences. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 acknowledged conscientious objectors. The Spanish parliament established a longer service (Prestación Social Sustitutoria) as an alternative to the Army. In spite of this, a strong movement appeared that refused both services. The Red Cross
was the only important organisation employing objectors. Because of
this, the waiting lists for the PSS were long, especially in areas like Navarre, where pacifism, Basque nationalism and a low unemployment rate discouraged young males from the army. Thousands of insumisos
(non-submittants) publicly refused the PSS, and hundreds were
imprisoned. In addition a number of those in the military decided to
refuse further duties. A number of people not liable for military
service made declarations of self-incrimination, stating that they had
encouraged insumisión. The government, fearing popular reaction, reduced the length of service and instead of sentencing insumisos to prison declared them unfit for public service.
Fronting the decreasing birth rate and the popular opposition to
the army, the Spanish government tried to modernise the model carried
from the Franco
era, professionalizing it. The new army tried to provide an education
for civilian life and participated in peace operations in Bosnia.
Turkey
The issue is highly controversial in Turkey. Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan
are the only three 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 the conscientious objection of Osman Murat Ulke. 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.
As of March 2011, there were 125 objectors including 25 female
objectors in Turkey. Another 256 people of Kurdish origin also had
announced their conscientious objection to military service. Conscientious objector İnan Süver was named a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.
On 14 November 2011, the Ministry of Justice
announced a draft proposal to legalise conscientious objection in
Turkey and that it was to take effect two weeks after approval by the
President to the change.
This decision to legalize by the Turkish government was because of
pressure from the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR gave the
Turkish government a deadline until the end of 2011 to legalize
conscientious objection. The draft was withdrawn afterwards.
A commission was founded within the National Assembly of the Republic
to write a new constitution in 2012. The commission is still in
negotiations on various articles and conscientious objection is one of
the most controversial issues.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom recognised the right of individuals not to fight
in the 18th century following problems with attempting to force Quakers
into military service. The Militia Ballot Act of 1757 allowed Quakers to
be excluded from service in the Militia. It then ceased to be a major issue, since Britain's armed forces were generally all-volunteer. However, press gangs
were used to beef up army and navy rolls on occasions from the 16th to
the early 19th centuries. Pressed men did have the right of appeal, in
the case of sailors, to the Admiralty. The Royal Navy last took pressed men in the Napoleonic War.
Conscientious Objector memorial in Tavistock Square Gardens, London — dedicated on 15 May 1994
A more general right to refuse military service was not introduced until the First World War. Britain introduced conscription with the Military Service Act
of January 1916, which came into full effect on 2 March 1916. The Act
allowed for objectors to be absolutely exempted, to perform alternative
civilian service, or to serve as a non-combatant in the army's Non-Combatant Corps, according to the extent to which they could convince a Military Service Tribunal of the quality of their objection.
Around 16,000 men were recorded as conscientious objectors, with
Quakers, traditionally pacifist, forming a large proportion: 4,500
objectors were exempted on condition of doing civilian 'work of national
importance', such as farming, forestry or social service; and 7,000
were conscripted into the specially-created Non-Combatant Corps.
However, 6,000 were refused any exemption and forced into main army
regiments; if they then refused to obey orders, they were court-martialled and sent to prison. Thus, the well-known pacifist and religious writer Stephen Henry Hobhouse
was called up in 1916: he and many other Quaker activists took the
unconditionalist stand, refusing both military and alternative service,
and on enforced enlistment were court-martialled and imprisoned for
disobedience.
Conscientious objectors formed only a tiny proportion of Military
Service Tribunals' cases over the whole conscription period, estimated
at around 2%.
Tribunals were notoriously harsh towards conscientious objectors,
reflecting widespread public opinion that they were lazy, degenerate,
ungrateful 'shirkers' seeking to benefit from the sacrifices of others.
Thirty-five objectors, including the Richmond Sixteen,
were taken to France and formally sentenced to death by court-martial
but immediately reprieved, with commutation to ten-years' penal
servitude.
Conditions were very hard for conscientious objector prisoners, many of
whom were not used to manual work, lack of regular exercise, and the
often cold, damp conditions; ten died in prison, and around seventy more
died elsewhere as a result of their treatment.
Although a few objectors were accepted for non-combatant service in the Royal Army Medical Corps,
acting as nursing/paramedic assistants, the majority of non-combatants
served in the Non-Combatant Corps on non-lethal stores, road and railway
building and general labouring in the UK and France. Conscientious
objectors who were deemed not to have made any useful contribution to
the state were formally disfranchised (through a clause inserted in the Representation of the People Act 1918
at the insistence of back-bench MPs) for the five years 1 September
1921 - 31 August 1926, but as it was a last-minute amendment there was
no administrative machinery to enforce such disfranchisement, which was
admitted to be a "dead letter".
Britain's conscription legislation of 1916 did not apply to Ireland, despite it being then all part of the United Kingdom.
However, in 1918 the Army's continuing demand for more troops led to
passing a further act enabling conscription in Ireland if and when the
government saw fit. In the event, the government never saw fit, although
the legislation led to the Conscription Crisis of 1918. Similarly, British conscription in the Second World War did not apply to Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, many Irishmen volunteered to fight in both world wars. The various parts of the British Empire and Commonwealth
had their own laws: in general, all the larger countries of the Empire
participated, and some were, in proportion to their population, major
participants in the First World War.
In the Second World War, following the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939,
there were nearly 60,000 registered Conscientious Objectors. Testing by
tribunals resumed, this time by special Conscientious Objection
Tribunals chaired by a judge, and the effects were much less harsh. If
you were not a member of the Quakers or some similar pacifist
organisation, 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. The tribunals could grant full exemption, exemption
conditional on alternative service, exemption only from combatant
duties, or dismiss the application. Of the 61,000 who were registered,
3,000 were given complete exemption; 18,000 applications were initially
dismissed, but a number of such applicants succeeded at the Appellate
Tribunal, sometimes after a "qualifying" sentence of three-months'
imprisonment for an offence deemed to have been committed on grounds of
conscience. Of those directed to non-combatant military service almost
7,000 were allocated to the Non-Combatant Corps, re-activated in
mid-1940; its companies worked in clothing and food stores, in
transport, or any military project not requiring the handling of
"material of an aggressive nature". In November 1940 it was decided to
allow troops in the NCC to volunteer for work in bomb disposal. In total over 350 volunteered. Other non-combatants worked in the Royal Army Medical Corps. For conscientious objectors exempted conditional upon performing civil work, acceptable occupations were farm work, mining, firefighting and the ambulance service.
About 5,500 objectors were imprisoned, most charged with refusal to
attend a medical examination as a necessary preliminary to call-up after
being refused exemption, and some charged with non-compliance with the
terms of conditional exemption. A further 1,000 were court-martialled by
the armed forces and sent to military detention barracks or civil
prisons. Differently from the First World War, most sentences were
relatively short, and there was no pattern of continually repeated
sentences. Nevertheless, the social stigma attached to 'conchies' (as
they were called) was considerable; regardless of the genuineness of
their motives, cowardice was often imputed.
Conscription in the United Kingdom was retained, with rights of conscientious objection, as National Service
until the last call-up in 1960 and the last discharge in 1963. The use
of all volunteer soldiers was hoped to remove the need to consider
conscientious objectors. Ever since the First World War, however, there
have been volunteer members of the armed forces who have developed a
conscientious objection to continuing in service; a procedure was
devised for them in the Second World War, and, with adaptations, it
continues to this day.
Conscientious objectors with medals for distinguished service
William Coltman, VC DCM & Bar MM & Bar MID
William Coltman, VC, DCM& Bar, MM& Bar (17 November 1891 – 29 June 1974) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross (VC), the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces. He was the most decorated Other Rank of the First World War. A conscientious objector, his Christian beliefs prevented him from taking up arms, but as a stretcher bearer he earned all of his decorations without firing a shot.
United States
There are currently legal provisions in the United States for recognizing conscientious objection, both through the Selective Service System and through the Department of Defense.
The United States recognizes religious and moral objections, but not
selective objections. Conscientious objectors in the United States may
perform either civilian work or noncombatant service in lieu of
combatant military service.
Historically, conscientious objectors have been persecuted in the
United States. After the Selective Service System was founded during World War I, such persecutions decreased in frequency, and recognition for conscientious objectors grew.
Other countries
As
of 2005, conscientious objectors 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. In
Germany, however, the draft was suspended in 2011. In Greece, civilian service is twice as long as the corresponding military service; the Swiss Civilian Service
is one and one-half times longer. In 2005, the Swiss parliament
considered whether willingness to serve one and a half times longer than
an army recruit was sufficient proof of sincerity, citing that the cost
of judging the state of conscience of a few thousand men per year was
too great.
Conscientious objection in professional forces
Only
three European Union countries – Germany, the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom – recognize the right to conscientious objection for
contract and professional military personnel.
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, military
chaplains and officers.
In Switzerland, the panel consists entirely of civilians, and
military personnel have no authority whatsoever. In Germany, the draft
has been suspended since 2011.
Common questions
Investigators
ask questions to determine the sincerity of an individual's
convictions. Responses such as "the army is senseless," "it is not just
to wage wars," or opposing participation in merely some wars, indicate
sociological, philosophical, or political objections, which are not
accepted alone.
Swiss hearings
The following are questions often asked of conscientious objectors in Swiss hearings.
Category
Questions
Generality
How and when did you decide against the military service?
Why can't you arrange military service with your conscience?
What prohibits you from serving 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 do your beliefs 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?
