"CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS."

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 30, Issue 21, 15 March 1918, Page 2

"CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS."

A statement just issued from the office of the Minister of Justice as to the attitude of military objectors generally gives a clear-cut issue for the people of this country to consider. (a.) Whether the laws solemnly and deliberately enacted by Parliament are to be obeyed ; f or . (b.) Whether defiance of the law is to be permitted, and those persons who know no rule but their own inclination are to be practically exempted from military service, while the citizens and sons of citizens who recognise and obey the law are to serve, and possibly suffer wounds and death, in the interests of the nation. In the public mind all objectors, from whatever cause their objections arise, seem to as “conscientious objectors.” The Department therefore, considers it advisable to set out the various categories of objectors and touch upon their legal rights and liabilities. As far as the law is concerned, only one class—“the religious objector"—is recognised for any measure of exceptional treatment. But there are also objectors whose objections are founded on religious grounds but who do not come within the statute, and there are also objectors who advance objections on conscientious grounds apart from religion. These come within the category of ‘ ‘ conscientious objectors. ’ ’ Finally there are objectors whose objections arc founded on a defiance of the law or a disinclination to servo in the Forces. These may be termed “defiant objectors," and are the most difficult to handle of the three classes mentioned, and which the Defence Department have to deal with. If nothing but refusal and defiance can bo got out of a man he is sentenced to a period of detention. In the greater number of these cases, however, the offender, on the completion of his sentence, continues in the course of defiance and flatly rexuses to obey the next order given. In that case the man is brought before a court-martial and is tried by court-martial for the second offence of refusing to obey orders. Ho has every opportunity to bring forward and substantiate his defence, but in the majority T)f cases there is no defence available to him except his unwillingness to serve. The court-martial is empowered to award imprisonment with or without hard labour as a punishment for this offence, and in most cases a substantial term of imprisonment is inflicted. The infliction of the punishment and the execution of the sentence does not make the man any the less a soldier, or take him out of the operation of the Military Service Act. He is merely a soldier under punishment for a military crime, and there is nothing to prevent, either before or on completion of his sentence, his being sent to tho front like any other soldier. The official statement referred to lays stress upon the necessity of handling firmly any spirit of insubordination, and quotes the following case: In July, 1917, fourteen men, comprising five men who had expressed in some way conscientious objection, and nine men who were simply “defiant objectors," were embarked on a transport for service abroad. These men were all serving sentences of various kinds for refusal to obey orders, and it would be of interest to consider their cases individually. There have been so many statements made in regard to these men, more or less exaggerated and untrue, that the fundamental facts are likely to be lost sight of. It must be borne in mind in considering these cases that the whole of the fourteen men are men whom the law has. called up as soldiers, and their legal status is that of soldiers. If they commit one of the most serious of military crimes, that of refusal to obey orders, any weakening in the firm handling of such defiant persons would immediately sap and eventually destroy that discipline which is the very essence of military efficiency. During the voyage the fourteen men absolutely refused to obey any orders or to do any fatigue work about the ship. Some days they refused to take exercise, and earlier in the voyage they refused to keep their quarters clean. They refused to do anything even for themselves; they would not observe ordinary cleanliness, with the result that they had to be forcibly bathed; their civilian outfits were condemned by the Medical Officer, and they had to be forcibly dressed in uniform. They continued their defiant attitude throughout. Although the general attitude towards them could not be and was not one of sympathy, there was at least one officer who made efforts for their reformation, but all that he could proved a failure, and they arrived at their destination as they had commenced their service, defiant and x refusing to obey orders. Many letters from these men have been published with a view to creating sympathy for persons who were allegedly imbued with religious or conscientious objections, but who in reality were imbued with a spirit of defiance.