Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Wars and Conflicts  permalink

The First Casualty

• Message 1. 

  Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Friday, 11th November 2005

  Hi,
  
  I am not sure whether this is the proper forum for this topic as it’s more of a political conundrum than a historical one. However, there are historical aspects to it so I’ll plough on regardless and maybe someone will direct me to the correct Message Board if it’s off subject.
  
  I’m currently reading Ben Elton’s new book ‘The First Casualty’, an historical novel set during the First World War.
  
  His main protagonist is a Police Inspector who is imprisoned for refusing conscription. I will not go into the reasons in detail but he is not a ‘typical’ Conscientious Object. He has no moral or religious objection to killing and he is not a pacifist, as he believes that war may be justified in certain circumstances. His reasons for refusing to be conscripted are intellectual and logical.
  
  My interests do not lie in the history of pacifism and Conscientious Objection. My particular interest is in the reasons he gives for this refusal.
  
  Given the current state of the world (escalating conflicts, more of them and the War on Terror etc.), I would like to pose a couple of hypothetical questions:
  
  If a future (or indeed the present) UK government found itself in such a position that it had insufficient professional military manpower to deal with any conflict(s) it might get itself involved in (and taking into account such things as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, EU Human Rights legislation and UK legislation derived form these):
  
  1). Could (and would) a UK government (politically, legally and/or morally) conscript its citizens against their (individual) will?
  
  and
  
  2). Assuming that the government did manage to get a conscription act onto the statute, - in the ‘modern’ context, would refusers be allowed to justify (to a tribunal) their refusal to serve by ‘intellectual’ and ‘logical’ argument? (i.e., rather than by having to resort to arguments of pacifism, conscience or religion).
  

  Link to this forum: The First Casualty

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 11th November 2005

  In short my opinion would be 1) Yes and 2) No.
  
  I don't think any human rights legislation could prohibit a nation from raising an army in times of conflict, by conscription if necessary.
  
  And secondly, it's not conscription if you can 'intellectually' or 'logically' say no thanks. Then its only really volunteerism with menance.
  
  This is only an opinion, as I'm not au fait with the current legal position
  
  Elistan

  Link to this forum: The First Casualty

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 11th November 2005

  I usually make it a rule never to step into a minefield, however, as your post raises a lot of questions that shouldn't be asked, I'll attempt an answer.
  
  1). Could (and would) a UK government (politically, legally and/or morally) conscript its citizens against their (individual) will?
  
  Politically, yes, providing the House of Commons and Lords were for it (and the Queen). Legally then it's a done deal. Morally, well don't forget that Churchill was voted out of office after conscripting the UK man (and woman) power into a war. From a personal view, it would depend upon the threat.
  
  2). Assuming that the government did manage to get a conscription act onto the statute, - in the ‘modern’ context, would refusers be allowed to justify (to a tribunal) their refusal to serve by ‘intellectual’ and ‘logical’ argument? (i.e., rather than by having to resort to arguments of pacifism, conscience or religion).
  
  Why do I hear lawyers going KerChing here? (Sound of a till being opened). It's probably because in Britain we have an independent judiciary process. Having said that refusers would be allowed to justify, in court, their reasons. However I have a suspicion that most (not all) of the judiciary couldn't recognise a logical intellectual arguement if it slapped them in the face.
  
  I'll leave you with the observation that the British Justice System is the best in the world you can buy.
  
  AA.
  

  Link to this forum: The First Casualty

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 12th November 2005

  Just about the only way to avoid conscription was to work in a war-vital occupation. In WW1 this basically meant working as a coal miner. it is quite a sad reflection on that industry that many miners joined up as volunteers because they thought life at the Front was better than life in the mines. So many of them volunteered that many were sent back to the mines.
  
  In WW2 my grandfather was exempted as he worked a signalman on the railways,which were vital for communication and logistics. As those were the days of manually operated signals and you had to be pretty strong to shift the levers, it wasn't a job that was deemed suitable for a woman.
  
  As for avoiding conscription on logical grounds - no chance.

  Link to this forum: The First Casualty

  Report message4

Back to top