How are conscientious objectors treated around the world? pt.1
I've already talked about the treatment of conscientious objectors here in Finland in previous posts (links at the end of this one). This is because Finland still has mandatory conscription for men, an aspect of life here that I personally do not care for and neither do multiple human rights organisations. It's also a personal topic for me, as I am under Finnish law considered as a conscientious objector myself. However, even though the Finnish system has received criticism for human rights violations, there are countries where the situation is even worse. That's why as a part of the International Week of Action Against Militarization of Youth, in this post I will talk about the treatment of conscientious objectors in other countries.
Some general information about conscientious objection before we go any further. The right to conscientious objection is derived from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads: "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.". Freedom of thought is also guaranteed under article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee has stated that this includes the right to conscientious objection. Anti-war organizations have also campaigned for a "right to refuse to kill" with some success, but ultimately success has been limited. Is this clear? Okay let's continue with the topic.
Let's start with Greece. Greece is actually the only country in the EU alongside Finland to have mandatory conscription for men. To be clear, there are other EU countries to have conscription, however, apart from Greece and Finland, service in these countries is in practice voluntary. Just like the Finnish system, the Greek system has also received criticism from human rights groups and mostly for the same reasons. However, the Greek system is much harsher compared to Finland. Just like in Finland, there are two alternative forms of service: unarmed service in the military and civil service. Also, just like in Finland, the length of civil service is considered punitive in length. Unlike in Finland, you can only apply for civil service before stepping into service and as far as I know, there is no way of getting out of military service after you start, unless you develop some kind of a medical problem. The application to civil service are also reviewed by a special committee, which can also force applicants to a personal interview to the committee. If your application gets rejected, you can appeal the decision, but if that doesn't help, you're ordered to step into service.
People who refuse both military and the substitute civil service are sentenced to prison. Based on what I've read, there is no one standard length for time served, instead the sentence depends on the terms of the particular case.. Apparently, some people are actually sentenced multiple times for refusing to serve. The treatment of draft evaders is also incredibly harsh. In Finland, draft evaders are simply given fines and ordered to take part in the draft on another date. In Greece on the other hand, draft evaders cannot vote or run for office, are banned from working as civil servants, prevented from obtaining a passport or leaving the country, prevented from getting licences to work in certain field, or having their licences revoked etc, and if they actually decide to finish their service, they have to serve additional time. The Greek system has received criticism from same organizations as the Finnish one, namely the UN Human Right Committee, UN Human Rights Council and Amnesty International. Apart from this, the European Court of Human Rights has actually made a decision regarding Greece in 2016. Apart from getting criticized for the same reason as Finland, namely the punitive length of civil service and imprisonment of people who refuse both forms of service, there have also been calls to abolish the investigative committee for conscientious objectors.
Next, let's look at Israel. Israel has conscription for both men and women, however this is not universal. Some religious and ethnic communities are actually exempt from service. This includes Christians, some Jewish sects and Arabs. Weirdly enough, the ethnoreligious community called Druze are required to serve in the military. They have their own religion largely based on Islam, but don't allow conversion to their faith or out of it and speak Arabic as their native language.
Conscientious objection is legal under Israeli law, however, it's heavily limited. It seem that at least unofficially, conscientious objection is only allowed for religious reasons. Considering Israels actions in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, you can probably guess that this creates problems as some refuse to serve in the military for their involvement in the conflict. As a result, it's common place for conscientious objectors to serve multiple short sentences for their refusal to serve, even if in their statement say that they are willing to complete civil service, some kind of which does exist, though I'm not that familiar with it, so I'll leave it out for this post. All I really know that it's apparently only reserved for certain religious groups and even then mostly for women.
Good example of this is Noa Gur Golan. She refused to serve in the military, because of her pacifist views and the situation in the occupied territories. Her application was rejected and she ended up serving four stints in jail totaling at 98 days. Instead of being recognized as a conscientious objector by the government, she was released from service for a "serious misconduct". Apart from this, a right wing newspaper attacked her mom for supporting her daughter. It's actually common place for conscientious objectors to be released from service for misconduct or disobedience, instead of being recognized as what they actually are.
Now, this is just a brief look at the treatment of conscientious objectors in two countries. I was planning to go through more countries in this post, but since this one was getting long, I'll split this into multiple parts. My plan was also to post this earlier, but I had some unexpected situations this week, which kinda resulted in me not being motivated to write. Thankfully, that has passed and I'm feeling more motivated than ever. I'm planning on posting one or two pots about this and then moving to other things, like the Finnish presidential election in January or something about the idiots that currently form our government. Seriously, there is a lot to write about there.
Part two: http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/how-are-conscientious-objectors-treated_25.html
Part three: http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/how-conscientious-objectors-are-treated.html
My posts about Finnish conscription:
Part one: http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/absurdity-of-finnish-conscription.html
Some general information about conscientious objection before we go any further. The right to conscientious objection is derived from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads: "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.". Freedom of thought is also guaranteed under article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee has stated that this includes the right to conscientious objection. Anti-war organizations have also campaigned for a "right to refuse to kill" with some success, but ultimately success has been limited. Is this clear? Okay let's continue with the topic.
Let's start with Greece. Greece is actually the only country in the EU alongside Finland to have mandatory conscription for men. To be clear, there are other EU countries to have conscription, however, apart from Greece and Finland, service in these countries is in practice voluntary. Just like the Finnish system, the Greek system has also received criticism from human rights groups and mostly for the same reasons. However, the Greek system is much harsher compared to Finland. Just like in Finland, there are two alternative forms of service: unarmed service in the military and civil service. Also, just like in Finland, the length of civil service is considered punitive in length. Unlike in Finland, you can only apply for civil service before stepping into service and as far as I know, there is no way of getting out of military service after you start, unless you develop some kind of a medical problem. The application to civil service are also reviewed by a special committee, which can also force applicants to a personal interview to the committee. If your application gets rejected, you can appeal the decision, but if that doesn't help, you're ordered to step into service.
People who refuse both military and the substitute civil service are sentenced to prison. Based on what I've read, there is no one standard length for time served, instead the sentence depends on the terms of the particular case.. Apparently, some people are actually sentenced multiple times for refusing to serve. The treatment of draft evaders is also incredibly harsh. In Finland, draft evaders are simply given fines and ordered to take part in the draft on another date. In Greece on the other hand, draft evaders cannot vote or run for office, are banned from working as civil servants, prevented from obtaining a passport or leaving the country, prevented from getting licences to work in certain field, or having their licences revoked etc, and if they actually decide to finish their service, they have to serve additional time. The Greek system has received criticism from same organizations as the Finnish one, namely the UN Human Right Committee, UN Human Rights Council and Amnesty International. Apart from this, the European Court of Human Rights has actually made a decision regarding Greece in 2016. Apart from getting criticized for the same reason as Finland, namely the punitive length of civil service and imprisonment of people who refuse both forms of service, there have also been calls to abolish the investigative committee for conscientious objectors.
Next, let's look at Israel. Israel has conscription for both men and women, however this is not universal. Some religious and ethnic communities are actually exempt from service. This includes Christians, some Jewish sects and Arabs. Weirdly enough, the ethnoreligious community called Druze are required to serve in the military. They have their own religion largely based on Islam, but don't allow conversion to their faith or out of it and speak Arabic as their native language.
Conscientious objection is legal under Israeli law, however, it's heavily limited. It seem that at least unofficially, conscientious objection is only allowed for religious reasons. Considering Israels actions in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, you can probably guess that this creates problems as some refuse to serve in the military for their involvement in the conflict. As a result, it's common place for conscientious objectors to serve multiple short sentences for their refusal to serve, even if in their statement say that they are willing to complete civil service, some kind of which does exist, though I'm not that familiar with it, so I'll leave it out for this post. All I really know that it's apparently only reserved for certain religious groups and even then mostly for women.
Good example of this is Noa Gur Golan. She refused to serve in the military, because of her pacifist views and the situation in the occupied territories. Her application was rejected and she ended up serving four stints in jail totaling at 98 days. Instead of being recognized as a conscientious objector by the government, she was released from service for a "serious misconduct". Apart from this, a right wing newspaper attacked her mom for supporting her daughter. It's actually common place for conscientious objectors to be released from service for misconduct or disobedience, instead of being recognized as what they actually are.
Now, this is just a brief look at the treatment of conscientious objectors in two countries. I was planning to go through more countries in this post, but since this one was getting long, I'll split this into multiple parts. My plan was also to post this earlier, but I had some unexpected situations this week, which kinda resulted in me not being motivated to write. Thankfully, that has passed and I'm feeling more motivated than ever. I'm planning on posting one or two pots about this and then moving to other things, like the Finnish presidential election in January or something about the idiots that currently form our government. Seriously, there is a lot to write about there.
Part two: http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/how-are-conscientious-objectors-treated_25.html
Part three: http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/how-conscientious-objectors-are-treated.html
My posts about Finnish conscription:
Part one: http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/absurdity-of-finnish-conscription.html
Part two: http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/absurdity-of-finnish-conscription_13.html
Part three: http://helvetinpastori.blogspot.fi/2017/11/finnish-conscription-pt3-militarization.html
Link to the campaign page for the International Week of Action Against Militarization of Youth
https://antimili-youth.net/articles/2017/09/call-action-4th-international-week-action-against-militarisation-youth-november-20
Two news stories about Noa Gur Golan:
https://972mag.com/israel-hayoms-new-target-the-mother-of-a-conscientious-objector/130794/
https://972mag.com/after-98-days-in-prison-idf-releases-conscientious-objector/130439/
Kommentit
Lähetä kommentti