WAR OBJECTORS NOW AND IN 1914-18

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23411, 19 August 1941, Page 6

WAR OBJECTORS NOW AND IN 1914-18

BRITAIN AT WAR

Sometimes a nation does learn from experience. The British record in the treatment' of conscientious objectors during the last war is not the pleasantest page in the history of this island: it could have been a great deal worse, but it ought to have been « great deal better. This time it is very much better, and the credit belongs to Neville Chamberlain, who showed in this matter a humane common sense that Mr Lloyd George lacked. Chamberlain understood that if a man is compelled to make a show, of fighting in violation .of his conscience, not only will be fight poorly, if he fights at all: he will demoralise all around' him. From the start he resolved that this time there should be no coercion of rebellious consciences, and he said, so bluntly. What is more important, he used the experience painfully won in the last war; this time the law was more far-sighted and elastic, and « provided not merely local tribunals to hegr pleas for exemption from military service, but also four, appeal tribunals to check their decisions. Gradations of Principle The problem is not simple. Conscientious objectors are always by temperament or tradition individualists, but they have nothing else in common. Some draw the line only against taking human life with. their own hands, but .they are willing to work with. a pen or a spade in uniform in the army. Others refuse to take the military oath, but they will gladly serve the community as agn-, cultural labourers. Some are men of spirit who volunteer for the most dangerous tasks open to them; they will sweep mines at sea, fight fires in an air raid, or attend the wounded on the battlefield. Some will serve under irfilitary discipline in the Royal Army Medical Corps, others only in a civilian Quaker ambulance unit. For au these gradations-of principle, some-of them' restftig on casuistical niceties, the law has tried to find a solution, and commonly with success. a The tribunals may exempt a resolute abso-. lutist” unconditionally from any form of service whatever, but if & man lans to convince them that he has a conscientious objection,” they may send him Into the combatant Tanks ■ of thte army. But two compromises, fire open, between these extremes; .the ttibunals may place , the objector the combatant ranks of-the army, orthev. may prescribe for him Civilian worlr of “national importance,” such as agriculture, forestry, or . the merchant marine. * Local Tribunal's Difficulty The grave difficulty is to measure the Urgency and sincerity of a. man’s conscience. Here, as one would expect, the local tribunals differ widely in toleration and comprehension. Fortunately the four appeal tribunals have often corrected their mistakes: of the appeals, 41 per cent, were successful. Even conservative. Englishmen feel a deep respect for Quakers and in general are tolerant toward religious pacifists; ‘ But about half of these belonged to the Church of England or the Methodist Church: it was often difficult'for a very young man to, prove that he had long held unorthodox views about war. The more eccentric sects raised some odd problems. Jehovah’s Witnesses,' for example, if I grasp their view are eager to fight under the Lord of Hosts at Armageddon, but they will not fight , under any less distinguished general iri any premature campaign.

[By H. N. BRAILSFORD In "The New Republic.”]

Those who: had an ethical objection <4,;/ war fared father worse, especially fak they were agnostics, and the political objectors worst of all, especially if they were,. Socialists. Tribunals would usually give a man some relief if he' could prove that he objected to aU •' wars, whatever his reason might , be. - The trouble began when he wanted to choose his war: that, it was commonly,' , held, was a matter not of “conscience? but of "expediency." In other words, conscience in the'traditional English view speaks in .categorical imperatives, The law gave no guidance here, for it included no'definitions. Communists do not lay claim to the liberty of private judgment, but the Independent Labour Party does, and some of its ‘members failed to convince their -■ 1 tribunals that their distaste for “imperialist wars" is a case of conscience. But a few were fortunate. I know of one case where a man who had fought in the International Brigades in Spain received exemption. But the political Objectors were a small minority: about '9‘per cent r 53,000 Seek Exemption A lew figures that give the dimension*, of the. problem may be of interest; The total number of men who ■ claimed exemption, on the score of'a ; conscientious objection fp waf amounted, up to January. , 19*1, to > 53 000: The proportion vanes in the different age groups: the highest percentage is two; not a large figure when ~r one remembers that pacifists have had : for several years m the Peace Pledg* Union a very active organisation. The - local tribunals dealt with objectors as ; follows; 6 per cent, received unconditional exemption; 37 per cent, were required to perform some civilian work of. national importance, and 30 per'cent: were sent to non-combatant service in the army. That is to say, 73 per cent, were held to be genuine cases. The remaining 27 per cent failed to convince the tribunals. Soot. , submitted: soiiie resisted and oth«r« r attainted better terms when they ap*; pealed to the national tribunals. What happened-to those who ,«k. i sisted? They do not appear to $£ numerous. The latest figures obtain*); , able show that only. 37 objectors Spteni.,. Christmas, in prison; One wishes that J - there’'had been ; none at all, but this* -> iribdest total-serves-to snow bow r#la?%,s tivejy system has - time 6312 men wteML afreSted. and- of. these 816. spent -thamtwo/yqars in Nor is thai}. -; all. In the last war a systematic attempt was made to break the will of the, more obstinate objectors by brutal and humiliating punishments. Some were even sent td France and , there subjected to the notorious "field- > punishment” commonly known ,as .“crucifixion." Seven were sentenced to be' shot, though this martyrdom, . , was" promptly- commuted to 10 year*’' imprisonment. Such stupidities are a : thing of the past. Tn very few in- , stances, so far as is known, were they attempted this time: seven objectors' who had.- been sent into the army? were beaten! up and otherwise humih-v ated at Liverpool: for this exploit one’-.' officer and six non-commissioned ,of 9* - cers were court-martialled. But ' the reader must not conclude that even in England pacifists lead an easy life f when they choose-to defy a nation , fighting for survival. Social and economic penalties await them, even,lf:.. .the law is lenient. Civil servants not penalised, but many municipali-; ' ties, many business firms, andtheßri-.K tish Broadcasting Corpbrafidn, dismi* their pacifist employees. ' * ■ .