[REPLACEMENT] On Conscientious Objection

[Mallorea and Riva]

Why? I view it as primarily a religious act, not a political one.

OOC: Well good for you, but this proposal doesn't:

Defines a conscientious objector as a conscripted individual who has a proven history of religious, conscientious, or moral objections to armed conflict, specifically, or violence, in general;

You keep mentioning religion. If any WA resolutions grant a right to religious freedom, they're Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly, both of which are Furtherment of Democracy.

Freedom of Expression is primarily about ensuring the right to dissent, with the right to religious expression crammed in there. Additionally in the first line it refers to this right as a human right, but since it focuses on utilizing this right in such a way that increases one's say in government, it makes sense that it was FoD.

Additionally, your style of argument - making no reference to the proposal, to existing WA law, or to the previous rulings citing the collective opinion of the WA moderators at the time - and instead simply repeating that "I see it as" something different, is almost impossible to rebut. It's not very compelling.

Look at the Freedom of Marriage act then. Repealed, granted, but still a valid example. Definitively a human right to get married, but to declare oneself married is not a political act. The same is true of declaring oneself a CO, the individual is actualizing their religious freedom and freedom of thought to prevent an abuse of their human rights.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Freedom of Expression is primarily about ensuring the right to dissent

OOC: LOL. And what would you call refusing to serve in the military if not dissent?

Additionally in the first line it refers to this right as a human right, but since it focuses on utilizing this right in such a way that increases one's say in government, it makes sense that it was FoD.

Conscientious objection is likewise about influencing government policy: (a) by opposing war efforts and thereby (incrementally) supporting a policy of pacifism and (b) by not being an agent of state violence. Conscientious objection is not merely an objection to the existence of violence. There have been proposals on that, which would undoubtedly belong in Human Rights. Perhaps the preamble could be tweaked to make that distinction clearer to those like you who don't understand what conscientious objection is. :)

Look at the Freedom of Marriage act then. Repealed, granted, but still a valid example. Definitively a human right to get married, but to declare oneself married is not a political act. The same is true of declaring oneself a CO, the individual is actualizing their religious freedom and freedom of thought to prevent an abuse of their human rights.

The freedom of marriage is merely a subset of another human right, the freedom to contract. It's not about "declaring oneself married", that would be ridiculous.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bell, who has been furiously shifting through unrelated emails relating to his Real Life^TM account, peaks out from around his laptop. "I can absolutely tweak that preamble, since it's clearly causing problems for some ambassadors."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I can absolutely tweak that preamble, since it's clearly causing problems for some ambassadors."

OOC: I hate when you do this. Do I have to go back to the bold underlined large print OOC tags?

I am absolutely willing to provide more constructive comments on your proposal - I realize this has all been rather useless off-topic guff well into the second page of your proposal thread so far - but not if you're going to relapse into conflating OOC and IC once again.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Noting the need for of manpower for military and paramilitary (why paramilitary?) entities;

Concerned that this need may override the legitimate religious, moral, and personal contentious objections that an individual might have with service while serving in a combat position;

Believing that no individual should be compelled to fight or kill contrary to those beliefs;

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines a conscientious objector as a conscripted individual who has with a proven history of religious, conscientious, or moral objections to armed conflict, specifically, or violence, in general;

Defines combat duties as those duties of military and paramilitary personnel that require direct participation in or exposure to battle, which, as a direct result, may directly cause injury or death another individual.

Clarifies that the definition of combat duties shall exclude simulated training, administrative, medical, or support activities, and or the operation of unarmed vehicles or equipment in an area in which where no routine or active fighting is expected.

Declares that no member state shall compel or coerce a conscientious objector to participate in combat duties, nor punitively penalize them for their status;

Allows Maintains the right of member states to review a conscientious objector’s history and present state to ascertain the veracity of their claim as well as interview associates and family of a conscientious objector, provided their testimonies are given without coercion or duress;

Allows Preserves the right of member states to conscript conscientious objectors for those activities that which do not fall under the auspices of combat duties, or fall under the exceptions herein outlined;

Strongly encourages that member states consider potential consanguinity between conscientious objectors and belligerents when determining the nature of a conscientious objector’s service activityies;

Clarifies that nothing in this law shall be construed to comment on or affect the legality therein of the institution of compulsory military service conscription.

'Since, Ambassador Bell, you probably want some constructive criticisms on this draft, I've got preliminary ones for you. I do hope that you do not consider it too uncouth of me.'

[Separatist Peoples]

"I can absolutely tweak that preamble, since it's clearly causing problems for some ambassadors."

OOC: I hate when you do this. Do I have to go back to the bold underlined large print OOC tags?

I am absolutely willing to provide more constructive comments on your proposal - I realize this has all been rather useless off-topic guff well into the second page of your proposal thread so far - but not if you're going to relapse into conflating OOC and IC once again.

OOC: Fine. Sorry.

[Kaboomlandia]

OOC: I seem to remember the existence of an issue about this same subject.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I seem to remember the existence of an issue about this same subject.

OOC: So what? There are many issues on the same topics as WA resolutions.

[Ainocra]

All able bodied adults are legally members of Ainocra's military, we cannot support this idea as it strikes at the very core of our culture.

Opposed

[Imperium Anglorum]

All able bodied adults are legally members of Ainocra's military, we cannot support this idea as it strikes at the very core of our culture.

Opposed

Then you are in direct contradiction to current WA legislation on this topic. I am attempting to repeal the aforementioned resolution, and have desired for it to be replaced by the proposal put forth by Ambassador Bell, which in my opinion, is less stringent than the requirements set forth in Resolution 132.

[Lexiz]

Conscriptive Military Service does wonders for nations in terms of military strength and teaches discipline. Lexiz is a very religious, but this is going too far, making an issue out of something that is not an issue at all.
Opposed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Conscriptive Military Service does wonders for nations in terms of military strength and teaches discipline. Lexiz is a very religious, but this is going too far, making an issue out of something that is not an issue at all.
Opposed.

I do hope that you realise that CDSP's proposal is less restrictive than the current legislation on the books?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Quick title edit since some players are struggling with the concept of this project.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Edits made. Ambassador Parsons, I've left the references to paramilitary organizations, as being drafted into the police or a civilian combat militia is just as much an issue of being drafted into the regular military. I've also left a few original phrases in place where I felt the wording to be more exclusive of loopholes here and there, such as directly referencing vehicles instead of leaving it at equipment. Otherwise, I've accepted your edits. As always, I'm pleased to receive feedback."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

While we'll be voting against the repeal, should it pass this does appear to cover those bases which the modern WA is at all willing to cover.

We'd add consideration of deployment area to the "Strongly encourages...service activities" clause - while driving a truck isn't per se taking up arms against your fellow man, driving an ammo truck up to a Gronktopian Front forward base to resupply the guys who're shooting at your sainted mother's ex-countrymen might be a little too close.

[Separatist Peoples]

While we'll be voting against the repeal, should it pass this does appear to cover those bases which the modern WA is at all willing to cover.

We'd add consideration of deployment area to the "Strongly encourages...service activities" clause - while driving a truck isn't per se taking up arms against your fellow man, driving an ammo truck up to a Gronktopian Front forward base to resupply the guys who're shooting at your sainted mother's ex-countrymen might be a little too close.

"As in allowing individuals to choose not to serve in activities related to, say, protracting war in Gronktopia? Or simply in selecting that individual to serve on the Bigtopian front instead of the Gronktopian front when applicable?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

While we'll be voting against the repeal, should it pass this does appear to cover those bases which the modern WA is at all willing to cover.

We'd add consideration of deployment area to the "Strongly encourages...service activities" clause - while driving a truck isn't per se taking up arms against your fellow man, driving an ammo truck up to a Gronktopian Front forward base to resupply the guys who're shooting at your sainted mother's ex-countrymen might be a little too close.

"As in allowing individuals to choose not to serve in activities related to, say, protracting war in Gronktopia? Or simply in selecting that individual to serve on the Bigtopian front instead of the Gronktopian front when applicable?"

Honestly? Since it's a "strong encouragement" we're talking about, I don't see that it makes a huge difference. Any nation not already considering that aspect is more or less begging for trouble of one sort or another to begin with, but maybe a WA nudge can make some REM staffing officer take a second look at where X recruit is going to be sent, who knows?

OOC: The example I keep coming back to is Japanese-Americans in WWII, whose families were put in concentration camps for "disloyalty" and yet who served the United States with bravery and distinction in Europe. IIRC they were more or less barred from Pacific duty other than in intelligence and special forces roles, where they served equally well. But if someone couldn't bring himself to possibly deliver the shots fired at his/her own cousins (depending on lots of other factors, of course), then I don't see how that could reasonably be held against them.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Corrections made. Looking to move this to submission relatively soon. Certainly not after several more months of drafting.

[Ecclestia]

I there,

I am a Christadelphian and we are a peace church who are recognised as conscientious objectors. Many in my church went to prison because they refused to fight in the Vietnam War when conscripted. I am really concerned by what you exclude as Administrative duties. Christadelphian have always refused to participate in any form of duty related to efforts supporting war. Under the proposed resolution, Christadelphians in non-sympathetic nations would still require Christadelphians to participate in positions which aid the war effort. This would render this proposed replacement void for Christadelphians in non-sympathetic nations and most likely result in the entire Christadelphian population being jailed. I ask that you give serious consideration to the points I have mentioned above. If you have any questions, please telegram me.

Ecclestia

[Separatist Peoples]

I there,

I am a Christadelphian and we are a peace church who are recognised as conscientious objectors. Many in my church went to prison because they refused to fight in the Vietnam War when conscripted. I am really concerned by what you exclude as Administrative duties. Christadelphian have always refused to participate in any form of duty related to efforts supporting war. Under the proposed resolution, Christadelphians in non-sympathetic nations would still require Christadelphians to participate in positions which aid the war effort. This would render this proposed replacement void for Christadelphians in non-sympathetic nations and most likely result in the entire Christadelphian population being jailed. I ask that you give serious consideration to the points I have mentioned above. If you have any questions, please telegram me.

Ecclestia

"If your nation is willing to grant such an exception, great. Not all nations feel that is sufficient reason to be excepted from non-combat duties. These are minimum requirements. Nations are able to grant greater exceptions and protections as they see fit. So, I'm going to have to refuse your suggestion."

[Tinfect]

I there,

I am a Christadelphian and we are a peace church who are recognised as conscientious objectors. Many in my church went to prison because they refused to fight in the Vietnam War when conscripted. I am really concerned by what you exclude as Administrative duties. Christadelphian have always refused to participate in any form of duty related to efforts supporting war. Under the proposed resolution, Christadelphians in non-sympathetic nations would still require Christadelphians to participate in positions which aid the war effort. This would render this proposed replacement void for Christadelphians in non-sympathetic nations and most likely result in the entire Christadelphian population being jailed. I ask that you give serious consideration to the points I have mentioned above. If you have any questions, please telegram me.

Ecclestia

OOC:
Good god stop with the Gravedigs.

[Separatist Peoples]

I there,

I am a Christadelphian and we are a peace church who are recognised as conscientious objectors. Many in my church went to prison because they refused to fight in the Vietnam War when conscripted. I am really concerned by what you exclude as Administrative duties. Christadelphian have always refused to participate in any form of duty related to efforts supporting war. Under the proposed resolution, Christadelphians in non-sympathetic nations would still require Christadelphians to participate in positions which aid the war effort. This would render this proposed replacement void for Christadelphians in non-sympathetic nations and most likely result in the entire Christadelphian population being jailed. I ask that you give serious consideration to the points I have mentioned above. If you have any questions, please telegram me.

Ecclestia

OOC:
Good god stop with the Gravedigs.

OOC: I was going to bump this when I logged on anyway, don't worry about it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I there,

I am a Christadelphian and we are a peace church who are recognised as conscientious objectors. Many in my church went to prison because they refused to fight in the Vietnam War when conscripted. I am really concerned by what you exclude as Administrative duties. Christadelphian have always refused to participate in any form of duty related to efforts supporting war. Under the proposed resolution, Christadelphians in non-sympathetic nations would still require Christadelphians to participate in positions which aid the war effort. This would render this proposed replacement void for Christadelphians in non-sympathetic nations and most likely result in the entire Christadelphian population being jailed. I ask that you give serious consideration to the points I have mentioned above. If you have any questions, please telegram me.

Ecclestia

OOC:
Good god stop with the Gravedigs.

OOC: I wouldn't find it fair to call this a gravedig (visiting the Elder home, maybe). I've started the repeal-replace effort for Military Freedoms Act, so this is quite relevant.

[Normlpeople]

"As much as these 'objectors' deserve a treason trial, I do see room for compromise. I would like clarification that discharging the individual from the military shall not be considered 'punitive'."

[Separatist Peoples]

"As much as these 'objectors' deserve a treason trial, I do see room for compromise. I would like clarification that discharging the individual from the military shall not be considered 'punitive'."

"Whatever discharge, be it honorable or otherwise, is really up to the state to determine, as the details of what a discharge entails change from one branch to another, let alone from one nation to another. After all, it is equally possible that an objector can serve honorably in their non-combat role as it is that they can refuse to do their duty and generally behave in a manner unbecoming. I imagine it would be illegal according to the CoCR to make the determination solely on objector status, since that is a fairly arbitrary characteristic, like one's politics, to pass judgement over, but not at all illegal to make that determination based on performance."