[PASSED] Repeal Conscientious Objectors Act

[Sedgistan]

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #127: Conscientious Objector Act (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Proposed by: Diogenes Epicurius

Argument: RECOGNIZING that there are many religious, philosophical and ethical systems that forbid violence.

UNDERSTANDING that many individuals who object to violence are at risk for punishment from their government and fellow citizens for failing to perform in military duties.

RECOGNIZING that the rights of these individuals should be protected.

PRAISING the attention that GA Resolution #127 has brought to this issue.

CONCERNED that under the current language of the "Conscientious Objector Act," active military personnel may falsely develop "objections" when faced with performing as prescribed in a legal contract which includes combat duties.

CONCERNED that such an act creates a dangerous precedent in countries in adherence to international law of soldiers signing up for combat positions and then being able to break their contract when called upon to do their duty.

CONCERNED that such efforts could cripple nations of the World Assembly if they engage in combat with a state not in adherence to international law.

CONCERNED that such precedent threatens all contracts made with a government by proxy.

RESOLVES that General Assembly Resolution #127, "Conscientious Objector Act" should be repealed immediately.

REQUESTS that should the "Conscientious Objector Act" be repealed all member nations should do their utmost to abide by the rest of the motion until a better worded act may be presented to this Assembly.

The above repeal was submitted by Diogenes Epicurius and reached quorum. It did not have its own thread and as people were already discussing the repeal here I posted the text of their repeal proposal here. My own draft is below but is not up for a vote.

The World Assembly

RECOGNIZING the importance of protecting the rights of individuals

REGRETTING that this resolution was rushed to a vote without any consideration, collaboration, or general discussion

DISMAYED that a person may avoid military service of any kind including non combat support service roles

APPALLED that one may refuse military duty for the reason of not liking the style of the uniform, the way drill instructors talk, distasteful orders received, or other reason

HORRIFIED that military personnel may refuse to obey any order without consequence

BELIEVING that this will lead to the complete breakdown of good order and discipline in the armed forces of the world

CONCERNED at the advantage this gives the armed forces of non-member states in a contest of arms

ENCOURAGES the passage of a more detailed and better written resolution on this issue

HEREBY Conscientiously Objects to and REPEALS Resolution 127 “Conscientious Objectors Act.”

[Otrenia]

Is it necessary to add "Conscientiously Objects to"

[Mousebumples]

I believe your "CALLS" section should perhaps be reworded to be "ENCOURAGES" ... I don't know if CALLS is action-y enough to be viewed as stipulating a future action beyond repeal, but I'd err on the side of caution and switch it out.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Is it necessary to add "Conscientiously Objects to"

Isn't that the best part?

[Garvug]

This has got my vote. I honestly wasn't too opposed to the Conscientious Objectors Act except for the bit mandating that people already in the military be allowed to declare themselves conscientious objectors. WTF? But yeah, I'll happily vote to repeal.

[Cardoness]

I believe your "CALLS" section should perhaps be reworded to be "ENCOURAGES" ... I don't know if CALLS is action-y enough to be viewed as stipulating a future action beyond repeal, but I'd err on the side of caution and switch it out.

Done.

[The Rich Port]

Is it ever a good idea to put "INSTA-REPEAL" on the thread title? It just reeks of... Well, something.

[Quailtopia]

I honestly wasn't too opposed to the Conscientious Objectors Act except for the bit mandating that people already in the military be allowed to declare themselves conscientious objectors.

Same. I'm in favor of this.

[Awkies]

The margin by which this resolution passed is undoubtedly one of the smallest in the history of the GA. Awkies opposed it for two key reasons.

The first:

the bit mandating that people already in the military be allowed to declare themselves conscientious objectors.

If a person is in military service for a particular period of time, they should be at the service of the military. That is what they volunteered for. Conscription is a different issue entirely - you're forcing people to join the military - but volunteers should do what the state wants them to, particularly if they are being paid for it.

The second was that a conscientious objector could be forced into supporting the military effort in non-combat means. This defeats the purpose of conscientiously objecting to a conflict in the first place. If I oppose a war, should I be forced to help the country win that war? I disagree.

If a well-written appeal arrives at quorum in the GA, our tentative declaration is that Awkies will SUPPORT such a repeal.

[Vinage]

We are also against the part which allows military personal to declare they are an Objector. This - could - work, but only before a 3 panel tribunal assessing said persons claims of being an objector. We can never rule out the chance of people lying to avoid service and to bask in the good pay we provide our soldiers with no hard work.

We are also against the Act as it does not take into account the chance that Total War maybe enforces in order to save the nations very existence. Therefore we are against because we believe the state superceeds people in some cases.

Advocate-Speaker of Vinage

[NewCalifornia-Republic]

this is the best bill ever

[Sionis Prioratus]

Is it necessary to add "Conscientiously Objects to"

Oh, I see you've learned how to use the forums. Good for you.

[Embolalia]

Would it be illegal to note that a replacement proposal is not only in drafting, but was at the time of passage?

[Meekinos]

Would it be illegal to note that a replacement proposal is not only in drafting, but was at the time of passage?

Would such a thing even be necessary?

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

I must say, I am against repealing it. I could care less how it may cripple armies.

[Meekinos]

I must say, I am against repealing it. I could care less how it may cripple armies.

Even if the replacement was a reasonable compromise?

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

I must say, I am against repealing it. I could care less how it may cripple armies.

Even if the replacement was a reasonable compromise?

Even so. If it is repealed successfully, I shall support the new Conscientious Objectors Act.

[Eireann Fae]

"Our position is as the UAS's," says Rowan, nodding in the direction of the Ambassador from Umbra Ac Silentium. "We would oppose any repeal of the current resolution, primarily because of the great odds replacement legislation would face in actually getting passed again - never mind allowing people to object to any war for any reason." The girl smiles. Indeed, the recently passed legislation on the matter is a treat as far as Eireann Fae is concerned. "Should the repeal go through, however, we would of course support a suitable replacement."

"Which the Military Freedom Act is not..." mutters Alexandra, setting down the codex.

[Cardoness]

An act to protect the right of conscientious objectors to refuse military service for moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs

A good and worthy goal.

DEFINING a conscientious objector as an individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion

This is taken from “Wikipedia” which in turn took it from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The article in question did not address conscientious objection but rather ensuring the universal rights of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. I looked in both an English and a legal dictionary and both provided the same definition of a CO: objection on moral or religious grounds (as to military service or bearing arms). It may not seem like much of a difference but the hitch is the “freedom of thought” clause. Someone who doesn’t have a moral or religious issue with serving in the military but simply doesn’t want to will be able to avoid military duty by saying “I think I will object to serving.” This effectively bans conscription as only those who want to serve will.

DECLARES that a person may claim the right to be a conscientious objector because of their moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs

I have no problem with this clause.

DECLARES that a person may claim the right to be a conscientious objector because they are pacifist, non-interventionist, non-resistant, antimilitarist, or other reason

I am uncomfortable with some of the stated reasons but will forgo discussion those and jump right to the end, “or other reason.” I don’t like the color green. Camouflage makes my butt look big. I don’t want to cut my hair. Following orders sucks. I have better things to do with my time. They don’t serve good food. I don’t want to stand guard in the middle of the night. I don’t anyone telling me what to do. I don’t want to show an asshole of an officer respect. These are other reasons. Military life sucks in peacetime. The officers suck, the food sucks, the beds suck, the jobs suck. You are away from your family for extended periods of time. In wartime you get all of that while someone is shooting at you. There is not a person who has ever served in the military who did not wish at some point that they were not in the military. And that’s the people who volunteered to join. Those who were drafted already don’t want to be there. The pacifist here are saying “yeah, what’s the problem?” Are your enemies in the WA? Are they subject to this resolution? If not, then they don’t have to worry about conscientious objectors while you have no way to defend yourselves. There is a difference between someone who objects to service on principle, and those who object just because they don’t want to. The former should be protected, the latter need to get off their ass.

DECLARES that a person may not be punished in any way due to their refusal to perform military service for moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs

In battle, if an order doesn’t get followed people die. There can be no hesitation, no second guessing, no debate. Do it some people may die, don’t do it more people will die. That is why refusing to obey an order is one of the gravest crimes in the military. I don’t want the pilot flying a Combat Air Patrol to object to the order to shoot down the bomber inbound to a major metro area.

DECLARES that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections

Very true, then what?

REALIZING that different nations have differing views on conscription and military service

Yes, not that it matters anymore.

THEREFORE DECLARING that each nation has the right to question those persons seeking conscientious objector status, however these questions may, in no way, be deliberately misleading, confusing, or self-incriminating

Why question them? This resolution gives a person the right to object for any reason, what difference does it make what the reason is?

FURTHER authorizing nations, at their discretion, to require conscientious objectors to fill non-combatant roles, or civilian service roles for an equal amount of time as those who perform the involuntary military service the conscientious objectors have objected to

Well thank you. Our nation just got overrun because we didn’t have a military, but we had the best damn merchant marine in the universe for all of a week.

DECLARES that this resolution does not prevent further regulation, by member nations or the World Assembly, to protect conscientious objectors.

How? This resolution has legalized conscientious objection for any reason and forbidden anyone from prosecution who objects to military service.

[Cardoness]

I guess I will submit this in three days should the repeal draft that has already been submitted by someone else fail to reach quorum. What is it with people not using the forum anyway?

[Cabanastan]

In light of the wave of resentment among our people, Cabanastan must voice its wholehearted support for this resolution.

[Ossitania]

I must say, I am against repealing it. I could care less how it may cripple armies.

I find the comment made by the honourable ambassador from Umbra Ac Silentium to be extremely cavalier and thoughtless. National defense forces are exactly that; forces of defense. If a country is invaded by a hostile force, who is supposed to defend the people if not the army? I'm a strong proponent of individual freedoms and human rights, ambassador, but I'm also a strong proponent of the idea that people generally need to be alive to exercise those rights.

Ossitania offers its full support so that Embolalia's superior resolution may be brought in.

[Jedi Utopians]

Ossitania offers its full support so that Embolalia's superior resolution may be brought in.

I agree with this notion. Others may object, but hopefully their objections are in the right forum so that they may be addressed to their satisfaction.

I had the rather unpleasant task of resigning last night, minutes before this resolution passed, and then asking for reinstatement. Today, I have the tedious work of regaining endorsements lost because of this unfortunate action. As this is the only way to prevent the resolution from affecting my nation, I did it, but I don't wish to make a habit of what must appear to my fellow nations as "spurious" unilateral action.

[Keronians]

The nation shall support this resolution if (sorry, I meant WHEN) it reaches the GA. Not to mention the fact that it is very humourous.

Our reasons:

1) People serving in the military could conscientiously deny to serve and so effectively refuse to abide by their contracts.

2) It states "any other reason". I could object to going to war because I like to stay in my bed.

3) It then goes on to say that they musn't be punished if their decision is based on moral, religious or philosophical beliefs. Doesn't cite "any other reason".

And the list continues.

Anyway, you have the full approval of our nation. How this ever passed is beyond me.

[Attalahonia]

I would just like to point out that the Concientious Objector Act should never have even been brought to vote.

Section 1, Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Section 2, Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Section 3, Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

The Concientious Objector Act broke 1,1, in that in took the legal power to maintain a proper military from its member states. It broke 2,4, in that it prohibits a proper method to maintain a force for self-defense, by allowing anybody, under any circumstance, to refuse military service. It broke 3,10, in that military recruitment is a military activity, so that the passing of this resolution is the organising of a military activity.