Conscientious objector

A conscientious objector is an individual whose personal beliefs are incompatible with military service, perhaps with any role in the armed forces or just with a particular war. This constitutes a conflict in the case of conscription.

Hearings about the state of the conscience

In the US, every conscientous objector has to appear in front of a panel of experts, which consists of psychiatrists, army chaplains and officers. In Switzerland, the panel consists entirely of civilians and military personnel have no authority whatsoever. In Germany, objections to military service are filed in writing, and an oral hearing is only scheduled if the written memorial has been unconvincing; in practice, due to the heavy workload - nowadays about half of all draftees in a given year file memorials as conscientious objectors - the competent authority reviews written applications only summarily, and it denies the alternative of a civilian service only in cases of grave shortcomings or inconsistencies in the written memorial. Commonly, once an objector is summoned to a hearing, he has to explain what experiences drove him to recognise a conflict concerning his conscience.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Common questions at hearings

• In general: How and when did you decide against the military service? Why can't you arrange military service with your conscience? What prohibits you to serve in the military?
• Military service: Do you fear having to fight, or to use force? Do you want to abolish the army? What do you think about the phrase "We have the army to defend us, not to kill others"?
• Use of force: What would you do if you're attacked? What do you feel when you see that others are attacked? What is violence, exactly? Would you rather experience losses than having to use force?
• Belief: What does your belief say? Would you describe yourself as a pacifist? What basic values, beside objecting to violence, do you have? What entity gives you the certainty that your thinking and your feelings are right?
• Implementation of your beliefs: Why didn't you chose to go into prison if your conscience is that strong? Why didn't you use medical reasons to avoid military service? What do you actually do to further peace, or is your attitude the only peaceful thing about you?
• Personality: Who is in charge of defending your children in case of an armed conflict? Do you live your ethical principles inside your family? What books do you read? What do you demand from yourself? Are you merely a leader, a follower or a loner?

These are common questions from Swiss hearings.http://www.armee-ade.ch/cms/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=99 By and large, these are asked in many other countries. They help to determine if the objector is politically motivated or if he is just too lazy to serve the country; or if he truly has a conflict stemming from his conscience. Arguments like "The army is senseless", "It is not just to wage wars" or opposition to involvement in a specific war (World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War; a hypothetical war of West Germany against fellow Germans from the GDR during the Cold War) will hardly ever be accepted. He has only, and convincingly, to show that his conscience does not allow participation in an organisation which is intended to use violence.

Related Topics:
World War II - Vietnam War - Iraq War - Cold War

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Criticism of such hearings

Hypothetical situations

In hearings about one's personal conflicts of conscience, here and there some subtleties may arise. One example from interrogations in Germany was about a plank of wood floating on the sea, and you, shipwrecked, need cling to it in order to save your life. Another person swims nearby and he also is in severe need of this plank. If you deny him this plank, you are apparently ready to accept the killing of a human being, and therefore able to serve in the military. Otherwise, when you would give the plank to your fellow shipwrecked being, you are willing to die and therefore not credible. "Well, it comes to a fight!" is not a good answer either because it is elusive, and in stating that there would be a fight you imply that somebody might get killed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In other examples, the interviewers wanted to know if you're ready to kill someone in personal self-defence, perhaps when your girlfriend is in immediate danger. The analogy to a possible commitment in the military is wrong since defending an emotionally close person rarely damages your personality, but in the military you're forced into a situation where you have to commit collective self-defence. Another example was that by driving a car, you could kill someone by mistake. Since the objector in question refused to waive his driving licence, he was deemed to be untrustworthy.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In various places, questions about such hypothetical situations have come into disuse because they do not explore the present-day state of the objector's conflict of conscience, but possible future actions which, with a great probability, will never take place. In the 1980s, this type of questions were abolished in Germany after the Constitutional Court found them unconstitutional.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Similar hearings and questions about hypothetical situations were in use in Finland for the most part of the history of Finnish conscientious objection, from its introduction in the 1930s to the 1980s, when they were abolished. Today, draftees have to specify whether they are objecting for religious or ethical reasons, but hearings are no longer held.

Related Topics:
Finland - 1930s

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hearings for those willing to serve?

Many conscient objectors find it unfair having to prove that they have reasons to object. They maintain that people who are willing to serve in the military should be subject to such hearings because they are more willing to kill, and a readiness to take others' lives is something the society tries to prevent.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~