[RE-OPENED] Rights About Military Service

[Bears Armed]

As the subject of 'conscientious objection' has arisen once more, i have decided to dig out my own mission's previous attempt at a proposal on this topic. It is not one that my government actively wishes to push through, given that although it deals with some moderately important 'sapient rights' it also intrudes somewhat more than we like upon national sovereignty, but if the other members of this Assembly become decided that some legislation on the matter on the matter is desirable then I believe that it might be more suitable than some alternative proposals I have seen during my time here.

Rights About Military Service

Category: Human Sapient Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: The World Assembly,

Understanding that the risk of War is unfortunately an inevitable fact of existence for many nations, and that some nations may therefore consider it necessary to require compulsory service in their armed forces,

Believing that this fact should not free national governments from the requirements of common decency,

Understanding that some people may sincerely hold religious or philosophical beliefs that the violence inherent in War makes service in armed forces, or possibly even any work that directly supports a nation’s war effort, morally unacceptable,

Regretting that some nations might treat people who have served in their armed forces with neglect or even disdain;

1. Accepts that nations can choose to have laws requiring people to perform some form of ‘national service’, possibly in their armed forces, and may also choose to have fulfillment of that duty be a legal prerequisite for the possession of voting rights and/or for holding public office, subject to the following limits:
A. Only people who already count as legally competent adults under the nation’s laws can be conscripted;
B. The process of conscription for this compulsory service must not involve any form of unfair and unreasonable discrimination;
C. Anybody who proves that they genuinely believe the violence inherent in War to make military service morally wrong must be exempted from it, although they may then be required to perform some alternative form of ‘national service’ instead, and likewise anybody whose belief about this extends to forbidding even non-military service that would directly aid war efforts;
D. Anybody who is exempted from any form of compulsory service because of their sincerely held beliefs must not be punished or otherwise discriminated against because of this fact;
E. Member nations may not conscript any foreigners unless such conscription is legal in those persons’ own homelands and they have treaties with those countries that specifically allow this;
F. If anybody conscripted into a member nation’s service has any dependants then that nation must take proper care of the dependants’ welfare during the conscript’s period of service;

2. Specifies that nations_
A. May encourage people to volunteer for their armed forces by offering one-off rewards, in cash or kind, payable at enlistment or at completion of service; may give volunteers more choice than conscripts get about enlisting for specific branches and units, maybe even units guaranteed not to be sent abroad, within those forces; and may give volunteers priority over conscripts for promotion and for training in specialised roles;
B. May not discriminate in any other way against anybody in those forces for being conscripts rather than volunteers;

3. EMPHATICALLY urges all nations to help all people who have served in their armed forces, whether as volunteers or as conscripts, by:
A. Providing those people with whatever help they require for re-entering civilian life, once that service is over, including financial support for them and for any dependants whom they possess until they no longer need this;
B. Providing full medical care, free of charge, for any injuries and illnesses that were incurred due to that service;
C. Providing adequate pensions for any of those people who are no longer capable of earning a living;
D. Promoting a general attitude of respect towards the current and past members of those forces amongst their peoples.

And the minutes of its previous drafting session are here.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Conscientious objection can happen within the military, even if enlisting is voluntary. The honoured ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg believes that the primary focus of the collaboration is indeed around conscription and conscientious objection. However, we are pleased to see how the honoured ambassador to Bears Armed replies to these issues.

We now know that a lot of legislation have been passed since we both have attempted no the draft, and the aim is now to bring this and my draft together. The primary concern now is that the CoCR and Freedom of Expression may have indirectly resolved these issues.

Yours etc,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Although all three of the drafts on this subject have considerable overlap, I find this one to be the most acceptable as-is. I do have a few concerns about how this would affect the current conscription laws of Glen-Rhodes.

B. The process of conscription for this compulsory service must not involve any form of unfair and unreasonable discrimination;

D. Anybody who is exempted from any form of compulsory service because of their sincerely held beliefs must not be punished or otherwise discriminated against because of this fact;

In Glen-Rhodes, conscription is mandatory for voting privileges, barring any exemptions for disabilities or not being fit to serve.* We have a standard conscription system wherein all males must serve in the military for two years, starting at age 18. However, no citizens is legally considered an adult until age 21; we start at 18, so that by the time their military service contract is up, they can participate in the voting process of the next election.

As far as discrimination, our current emergency conscription system uses the random lottery technique, but only male citizens aged 18-35 years old, who are not currently in college, the only male in their household, or the only son in their family, are subject to emergency conscription. I am generally in favor of ambiguous language in proposals, but considering the likelihood of citizens going to the courts over conscription, I fear the ambiguity of 'unfair and unreasonable discrimination' would become a serious issue.

Those persons who cannot serve in the military, either because they are conscientious objectors or unfit to serve, must pay an additional small percentage in income tax. (Currently it is 2%, but it is up for review each year.) Is this being 'punished or otherwise discriminated against', according to this proposal?

*'Unfit to serve' is defined as being unable to pass mental and physical proficiency examinations. Those who are disabled or declared unfit to serve are able to participate in humanitarian services either domestically or abroad. Those who are able and fit to serve, but conscientiously object, are able to serve in an assisting position to public safety services (fire departments, police departments, disaster relief, etc.). If those people chose to go these routes, they are not subject to the punitive income tax.



[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Bears Armed]

{OOC: Those are good questions, but I have to log off very shortly and might not be able to get back online again until Monday or Tuesday; I'll print out a copy, to consider my responses so that I can answer them promptly then...)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

In Glen-Rhodes, conscription is mandatory for voting privileges, barring any exemptions for disabilities or not being fit to serve.* We have a standard conscription system wherein all males must serve in the military for two years, starting at age 18. However, no citizens is legally considered an adult until age 21; we start at 18, so that by the time their military service contract is up, they can participate in the voting process of the next election.

I cannot challenge this argument even it does not seem to be in line with our rather flexible ideology.

As far as discrimination, our current emergency conscription system uses the random lottery technique, but only male citizens aged 18-35 years old, who are not currently in college, the only male in their household, or the only son in their family, are subject to emergency conscription. I am generally in favor of ambiguous language in proposals, but considering the likelihood of citizens going to the courts over conscription, I fear the ambiguity of 'unfair and unreasonable discrimination' would become a serious issue.

I am not sure why this draft should dictate methods of selection in member states that have conscription. The selection of conscripts should be left up to them. I left the selection process out of my response.

Those persons who cannot serve in the military, either because they are conscientious objectors or unfit to serve, must pay an additional small percentage in income tax. (Currently it is 2%, but it is up for review each year.) Is this being 'punished or otherwise discriminated against', according to this proposal?

*'Unfit to serve' is defined as being unable to pass mental and physical proficiency examinations. Those who are disabled or declared unfit to serve are able to participate in humanitarian services either domestically or abroad. Those who are able and fit to serve, but conscientiously object, are able to serve in an assisting position to public safety services (fire departments, police departments, disaster relief, etc.). If those people chose to go these routes, they are not subject to the punitive income tax.

I'm afraid that that statute is going to affect disabled people, which in turn is in violation of the CoCR. Any taxation, in fact, any form of punishment against COs or unsuitable candidates is unacceptable. Draft evasion, however, is an exception, because is different from conscientious objection: it's where candidates for the draft deliberately try to avoid draft without declaring conscientious objection, which should be protected.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm afraid that that statute is going to affect disabled people, which in turn is in violation of the CoCR. Any taxation, in fact, any form of punishment against COs or unsuitable candidates is unacceptable. Draft evasion, however, is an exception, because is different from conscientious objection: it's where candidates for the draft deliberately try to avoid draft without declaring conscientious objection, which should be protected.

Are we speaking of the current conscription laws of Glen-Rhodes, or this proposal? If the former, I am certainly positive that it complies with the Charter of Civil Rights. The reason why those persons who refuse to do any form of service are taxed, disabled or not -- and believe me, short from being completely incapable of doing anything whatsoever, there is some kind of service that all disabled persons could do; we do our best to make sure something is available -- is because Glen-Rhodes has to hire private contractors to fill in the gaps. The Charter of Civil Rights allows discrimination for 'compelling practical purposes', which in this case the purpose would be to not run defense budget deficits.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Bears Armed]

{OOC: Those are good questions, but I have to log off very shortly and might not be able to get back online again until Monday or Tuesday; I'll print out a copy, to consider my responses so that I can answer them promptly then...)

(OOC: Back online now, after all, so let's see.)

Although all three of the drafts on this subject have considerable overlap, I find this one to be the most acceptable as-is. I do have a few concerns about how this would affect the current conscription laws of Glen-Rhodes.

B. The process of conscription for this compulsory service must not involve any form of unfair and unreasonable discrimination;

D. Anybody who is exempted from any form of compulsory service because of their sincerely held beliefs must not be punished or otherwise discriminated against because of this fact;

In Glen-Rhodes, conscription is mandatory for voting privileges, barring any exemptions for disabilities or not being fit to serve.* We have a standard conscription system wherein all males must serve in the military for two years, starting at age 18. However, no citizen is legally considered an adult until age 21; we start at 18, so that by the time their military service contract is up, they can participate in the voting process of the next election.

As far as discrimination, our current emergency conscription system uses the random lottery technique, but only male citizens aged 18-35 years old, who are not currently in college, the only male in their household, or the only son in their family, are subject to emergency conscription. I am generally in favor of ambiguous language in proposals, but considering the likelihood of citizens going to the courts over conscription, I fear the ambiguity of 'unfair and unreasonable discrimination' would become a serious issue.

It would become an issue for your own nation’s courts to settle: Don’t you trust them?
The CoCR would seem to apply too, but of course that contains some ambiguous language itself... Presumably you use its loophole about ‘compelling practical purposes’ to justify conscripting only males, and not females too? Hr’rmm, does this mean that you do not allow females to become citizens?!?

Those persons who cannot serve in the military, either because they are conscientious objectors or unfit to serve, must pay an additional small percentage in income tax. (Currently it is 2%, but it is up for review each year.) Is this being 'punished or otherwise discriminated against', according to this proposal?

*'Unfit to serve' is defined as being unable to pass mental and physical proficiency examinations. Those who are disabled or declared unfit to serve are able to participate in humanitarian services either domestically or abroad. Those who are able and fit to serve, but conscientiously object, are able to serve in an assisting position to public safety services (fire departments, police departments, disaster relief, etc.). If those people chose to go these routes, they are not subject to the punitive income tax.

As it currently stands, I think that that tax probably would be illegal, yes. However, if those alternative paths of service that you provide are also acceptable routes to citizenship then you could make the extra tax payable “by non-citizen adult nationals” instead rather than specifically by people who do not perform national service and I think that that would technically be legally acceptable. (You can already rationalise it past the CoCR, yes?)


I thank you again for raising these points, as answering them has led me to an ambiguity in this draft that I will need to clarify: The clause forbidding discrimination against conscientious objectors should be worded to make it clearer that the denial of citizenship to people who will not perform any of the possible forms of national service is allowable in their case if the nations concerned wish to follow that practice.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honestly I had this clause in my earlier draft:

3. MANDATES that member states (that mandate compulsory military service) must not:
a) Subject conscientious objectors to imprisonment and to repeated punishment for failure to perform military service, and;
b) Deny conscientious objectors or those who have not accepted military service any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are guaranteed to inhabitants of member states under national and international law.

May need a bit of reworking, though to update it.

[Bears Armed]

Honestly I had this clause in my earlier draft:

3. MANDATES that member states (that mandate compulsory military service) must not:
a) Subject conscientious objectors to imprisonment and to repeated punishment for failure to perform military service, and;
b) Deny conscientious objectors or those who have not accepted military service any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are guaranteed to inhabitants of member states under national and international law.

May need a bit of reworking, though to update it.

OOC: Your clause '3.b', as quoted here, was actually why I originally started drafting this proposal. As you may or may not recall, I felt that nations should have the right to deny 'political' rights to people who refuse to do national service...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Denying 'political' rights to people who refuse to kill (unless they draft dodge) because of their religious beliefs is ridiculous, honoured ambassador to Bears Armed. That can't be considered to be freedom of expression.

Yes, member states have a right to the military, but it isn't worth conscripting people who are clearly not going to pull a trigger, and then denying them political rights for wasting money: that's why there needs to be a conscientious objection process and rights, which means member states don't have to COs for their money back as they would have selected the right people.

[Bears Armed]

Denying 'political' rights to people who refuse to kill (unless they draft dodge) because of their religious beliefs is ridiculous, honoured ambassador to Bears Armed. That can't be considered to be freedom of expression.

Yes, member states have a right to the military, but it isn't worth conscripting people who are clearly not going to pull a trigger, and then denying them political rights for wasting money: that's why there needs to be a conscientious objection process and rights, which means member states don't have to COs for their money back as they would have selected the right people.

Please note that my draft does suggest the provision of alternative forms of national service for people who are morally opposed to violence: It's those who simply refuse to serve their nation at all whom I can accept nations being allowed to disenfranchise.

(Now, as we have both stated our views on this point, i think that we should drop it for now... unless you would care to start a thread on the topic over in 'General'?)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I guess we have arrived at this suggestion:

3. MANDATES that member states (that mandate compulsory military service) may not:
a) Subject conscientious objectors to imprisonment and to repeated punishment for failure to perform armed military service, and;
b) Deny conscientious objectors, or those exempted from military service for health reasons (including physical and learning disability), any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are guaranteed to inhabitants of member states under national and international law.

I've always thought it would be a good idea to deal conscientious objection as a separate issue.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It would become an issue for your own nation’s courts to settle: Don’t you trust them?

I don't think our legislature and military would like to take those chances.

The CoCR would seem to apply too, but of course that contains some ambiguous language itself... Presumably you use its loophole about ‘compelling practical purposes’ to justify conscripting only males, and not females too? Hr’rmm, does this mean that you do not allow females to become citizens?!?

Well, no, females receiving their voting rights at age 21 regardless of military or humanitarian participation. I guess I should qualify my statements more often.

As it currently stands, I think that that tax probably would be illegal, yes. However, if those alternative paths of service that you provide are also acceptable routes to citizenship then you could make the extra tax payable “by non-citizen adult nationals” instead rather than specifically by people who do not perform national service and I think that that would technically be legally acceptable. (You can already rationalise it past the CoCR, yes?)

I suppose I shouldn't be so naive to think Glen-Rhodes would be able to come out this unchanged. Not being able to tax those who do not serve is not a major issue, since we can take alternative routes to funding our defense.

Is your suggestion merely a wording change? Currently, if you participate in either the military or the various other forms of civilian service, you are not given the special tax. In other world, "non-citizen adult nationals" are the ones taxes, but I'm not seeing the difference between that phrase and "people who do not perform national service".

... the denial of citizenship to people who will not perform any of the possible forms of national service is allowable in their case if the nations concerned wish to follow that practice.

This would make the proposal immensely better.

[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]

[Priatha]

This Act is the most acceptable on face to me. In fact, I would vote for it right now. I think that it is important that you qualify the right to require those who object to violence to do other forms of service -- most of the other bills don't do that. The only suggestion at this time is to consider adding a clause that allows the government to require those citizens who refuse to do any sort of military service (because they object to facilitating violence in any way) to do some sort of domestic community service to make up for the military service (for example, require them to clean the sides of roads, or work at state-run food kitchens, etc., with punishments for non-compliance to that). In other words, mandatory community service in lieu of mandatory military service for extreme objectors.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

This Act is the most acceptable on face to me. In fact, I would vote for it right now. I think that it is important that you qualify the right to require those who object to violence to do other forms of service -- most of the other bills don't do that. The only suggestion at this time is to consider adding a clause that allows the government to require those citizens who refuse to do any sort of military service (because they object to facilitating violence in any way) to do some sort of domestic community service to make up for the military service (for example, require them to clean the sides of roads, or work at state-run food kitchens, etc., with punishments for non-compliance to that). In other words, mandatory community service in lieu of mandatory military service for extreme objectors.

That matches the description of alternative service as a result of conscientious objection, honoured ambassador to Priatha.

[Unibot]

Unibot would only support a resolution which banned conscription in its entirety. Conscription is utterly ineffective in its intent other than to provide a military with a method of inflating their armies with unprepared, bumbling and depressed soldiers who are generally ineffective in their positions against a trained, prepared individual. Every citizen must have the right to choose if they will represent their nation in its military actions, or else the entirety of human rights legislation might as well be carelessly defenestrated and the particular resolution category renamed appropriately to "Cannon Fodder Rights".

This proposal attempts to suck the venom out of the wound without getting our teeth in deep enough.

[Priatha]

This Act is the most acceptable on face to me. In fact, I would vote for it right now. I think that it is important that you qualify the right to require those who object to violence to do other forms of service -- most of the other bills don't do that. The only suggestion at this time is to consider adding a clause that allows the government to require those citizens who refuse to do any sort of military service (because they object to facilitating violence in any way) to do some sort of domestic community service to make up for the military service (for example, require them to clean the sides of roads, or work at state-run food kitchens, etc., with punishments for non-compliance to that). In other words, mandatory community service in lieu of mandatory military service for extreme objectors.

That matches the description of alternative service as a result of conscientious objection, honoured ambassador to Priatha.

Reading it over, I can see the two different interpretations. When I first read the following section:

C. Anybody who proves that they genuinely believe the violence inherent in War to make military service morally wrong must be exempted from it, although they may then be required to perform some alternative form of ‘national service’ instead, and likewise anybody whose belief about this extends to forbidding even non-military service that would directly aid war efforts;

I read it to mean: If someone has a belief against fighting, then he can work as part of the national service in a non-combat position (e.g., cooking, mending clothes, writing and distributing reports, etc.). If they object to helping the war effort in any capacity, they will be exempted from national service.

The term "national service" brings to mind some sort of service in the military, though not necessarily combat service. This may be where the differing opinion comes in. Should national service mean any sort of service for the nation, then yes, my comment would be unnecessary. However, I believe the wording of the bill implies that it means what I have mentioned above, in which case it must be remedied. At the very least, the wording should be cleaned up to prevent ambiguities such as these two conflicting interpretations.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Unibot would only support a resolution which banned conscription in its entirety. Conscription is utterly ineffective in its intent other than to provide a military with a method of inflating their armies with unprepared, bumbling and depressed soldiers who are generally ineffective in their positions against a trained, prepared individual. Every citizen must have the right to choose if they will represent their nation in its military actions, or else the entirety of human rights legislation might as well be carelessly defenestrated and the particular resolution category renamed appropriately to "Cannon Fodder Rights".

This proposal attempts to suck the venom out of the wound without getting our teeth in deep enough.

I tried the following before, but it wasn't popular:

MANDATES that: all armed forces in member states shall be made out of volunteers or professionals.

[Unibot]

Unibot would only support a resolution which banned conscription in its entirety. Conscription is utterly ineffective in its intent other than to provide a military with a method of inflating their armies with unprepared, bumbling and depressed soldiers who are generally ineffective in their positions against a trained, prepared individual. Every citizen must have the right to choose if they will represent their nation in its military actions, or else the entirety of human rights legislation might as well be carelessly defenestrated and the particular resolution category renamed appropriately to "Cannon Fodder Rights".

This proposal attempts to suck the venom out of the wound without getting our teeth in deep enough.

I tried the following before, but it wasn't popular:

MANDATES that: all armed forces in member states shall be made out of volunteers or professionals.

Sometimes unpopularity is an indication that the argument has merit, and arguments for human rights are no different. The party who will be effected the most with the freedoms of the many secured will scream the loudest in reaction -- in this case that party is a bunch of tyrannical warlords, banana republicans and zealous military nuts .. all regrettably common varieties of politician in our world. Nevertheless I would support a resolution that just included your clause, ambassador, than the entirety of this toothless draft.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Sometimes unpopularity is an indication that the argument has merit, and arguments for human rights are no different. The party who will be effected the most with the freedoms of the many secured will scream the loudest in reaction -- in this case that party is a bunch of tyrannical warlords, banana republicans and zealous military nuts .. all regrettably common varieties of politician in our world. Nevertheless I would support a resolution that just included your clause, ambassador, than the entirety of this toothless draft.

I am totally speechless honoured ambassador: this is such a big risk to take. Are you sure this idea should go ahead?

[Grays Harbor]

We would disagree that it is only "tyrannical warlords, banana republicans and zealous military nuts" who have national service commitments. There are a good many upstanding nations who also have conscription in order to spread it more equitably. We remain of the opinion that it is not the place of the WA to mandate who can serve and how.

[The Altani Federation]

We would disagree that it is only "tyrannical warlords, banana republicans and zealous military nuts" who have national service commitments. There are a good many upstanding nations who also have conscription in order to spread it more equitably. We remain of the opinion that it is not the place of the WA to mandate who can serve and how.

Seconded. National service is a time-honored commitment in our Federation, as it was in its predecessor states. We don't need the WA to tell us what to do with military service, we've known what to do with ours for over a century now.

As for conscription, we agree that it is ineffective compared to a trained, professional military. However, if we were to ever come under a serious enough threat to demand it, you had better believe that we Altani would conscript every living thing in our nation that moved, up to and including strapping bombs to cats, dogs and parrots, if need be. In a time of desperate and great need, every citizen has a responsibility to serve and protect their nation.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

We would disagree that it is only "tyrannical warlords, banana republicans and zealous military nuts" who have national service commitments. There are a good many upstanding nations who also have conscription in order to spread it more equitably. We remain of the opinion that it is not the place of the WA to mandate who can serve and how.

What distinguishes a 'respectable' nation that implements conscription and those run by tyrannical warlords, banana republicans and zealous military nuts? Equality in murder?

Its a serious, and immoral breach of civil rights.

Unibot will offer refugee and full immigration status to any draft dodger.

[The Ottoman Empire3]

the ottoman empire agrees with this porposel except for some disabeld should not be exempt such as parapalegecs and the pepole with vissen problems if you can modify a chair you can modify a tank also we beleve the millatary instills desaplen

[Linux and the X]

the ottoman empire agrees with this porposel except for some disabeld should not be exempt such as parapalegecs and the pepole with vissen problems if you can modify a chair you can modify a tank also we beleve the millatary instills desaplen

Were you in the military, Ambassador?