Michael Lyons.
As a Quaker, I have mixed feelings about a man being forced to kill another man. It may be true that because I have mixed feeling about being forced to kill another human being, that I am a Quaker. Chicken and Egg.
Michael was jailed for seven months on Tuesday because, having served in the Navy for 6 years as a medical assistant on submarines, he refused rifle training when he was to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Whilst I wholeheartedly support the right to be a conscientious objector, I freely admit that my first reaction on reading the Guardian article was ‘shouldn’t have joined the bluddy Navy then, should you Pal?’ I was totally unsympathetic towards his predicament.
It seemed morally questionable to have accepted the secure employment, the training, the benefits of being service personnel for six years and then only reveal your moral objections to military action on the eve of deployment to active duty. (Though if anybody could outline the military tactics behind deploying a submariner in the middle of the Kabul desert to me, I would be grateful!)
Michael hadn’t refused active service on religious grounds; he is an atheist, so his objection was on political not moral grounds. He had read the Wikileaks reports and believed that he would be barred from treating Afghan civilians.
War is possibly an even more emotive debating ground than religion.
There is a majority opinion in most countries that boys must grow to be ‘men’, must fight to preserve their borders and protect their women and children. ‘Where would we be’, the argument runs, ‘if everybody squealed – ooh, I couldn’t kill anybody, not I’.
It is usually presented in those terms; ‘they squealed’, they displayed ‘girlish tendencies’, they are not ‘real men’.
My own Father, a Seventh Day Adventist, (don’t ask, I have no idea!) solved this conundrum during the last war by signing up early and becoming one of the youngest Captains – in Bomb Disposals. It ruined his mental health, but allowed him to believe that he was solely saving life, not taking it. He could, as a member of the Seventh Day Adventists, have legitimately claimed Contentious Objector status, the law allows for that. Curiously, most Seventh Day Adventists who did claim conscientious objector status, were subsequently deployed into bomb disposals – perhaps dear Papa gave them the idea. The Militia Ballot Act of 1757 was passed specifically to allow Quakers to be excluded from military service and it has since been extended to include other faiths.
That was a war time situation though, all hands on deck etc. What of Michael’s situation – quietly coasting along in the Navy, deployed under the seas, trained in the arts of manhandling a stretcher through narrow bulkheads, and suddenly presented with an SA80 rifle and told to practise killing people that he didn’t believe should be killed?
Do any of us have the right to force a man to kill another man? Do the arguments of the ‘greater good’ overcome the damage done to an individual forced to take such an action – not in the heat of the moment, to protect those nearest and dearest to him, something that I would do myself if the occasion arose – but coldly, cynically, ‘train your rifle on that person and kill him, our political betters have decreed that you do so’.
The Judge Advocate, Alistair McGrigor, told Michael, ‘Members of the armed forces cannot pick and choose which orders they want to carry out’. Fair enough, an army is all about discipline. Should that discipline extend to forcing a man to carry out an action which he feels will damage his mental health due to its moral repugnance to him?
International Law is surprisingly partly on Michael’s side. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/77 officially recognized that ‘persons [already] performing military service may develop conscientious objections.’ The US Supreme Court has effectively ruled that, whilst you may ‘develop’ a conscientious objection, it cannot be selective. You must object to all military service, not just be country specific.
Had Michael developed a desire to join a particular religious group, he would not be facing this prison sentence; it seems that, as an atheist, he is excluded from all the exemptions he might have sought refuge in. Moral objections are only for the established church members it seems. Do atheists not have morals?
Does that seem reasonable to you? Do you think he should have been marched at gun point and ordered to disembowel the nearest Afghani? I can’t help feeling that given the limited use a reluctant submariner combatant would have been in the Kabul desert, the Navy could have found another way of dealing with Michael Lyons.
July 15, 2011 at 02:06
-
For future amusement, a post demonstrating the sizzling intellect of CiF
commenters on a piece on this subject:
“Quick question:
>Last June Michael received an order to deploy for a patrol base in
>Afghanistan on the 1 March. We were recently engaged and had been
?>planning our wedding for 2011.
When you say a patrol base, do you mean a physical base in Afghanistan? Or
are you talking about a submarine based there?
Because if it is a physical base in Afghanistan, some might think that he
didn’t want to go since he would be in far more danger than simply being in a
submarine. The Taliban don’t have the best anti sub warfare after all now do
they? but they do have a natty line in IED’s.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/8819547
… The submarine base in Afghanistan is presumably just like the one in
Birmingham
.
- July 7, 2011 at 21:40
-
I believe that George Orwell was right about what pacifism really
means:
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw
“Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If
you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the
other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the
present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea
that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while
living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is
a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that
‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be
“objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist
activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty
is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they
can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories.
The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist
propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate
pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher
babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda
can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of
freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to
totalitarianism.”
I rest my case.
- July 7, 2011 at 03:29
-
Well said ancient and tattered.
Any pretense that this has something to do with being a conscientous
objector is specious.
But as always, I learned something about conscientious objectors here and
how brave you have to be NOT to enlist for a active service.
- July 6, 2011 at 20:37
-
Do not join the ARMED services if you do not like arms. This creature is a
pathetic posturing wimp. I do not have a jot of sympathy for him.
- July 6, 2011 at 18:57
-
When he was deployed in a war theatre, his colleagues would have 100%
expectation that he was fully available to help protect & defend them.
Just as they would help protect & defend him.
- July 6, 2011 at 17:46
-
I have no military experience or knowledge, but ‘Engineer’s’ comment sums
it up for me.
If you don’t do killing, don’t voluntarily join an
organisation that does it for a living when necessary. Even if it’s killing
remotely, rather than face to face.
I wouldn’t have thought any crew member
would spend his whole service life underwater, so other service duties and
responsibilities are part of the job. So I think the Afghanistan posting is a
red herring.
If it’s a case of new found belief, brave man to go to jail
for it.
- July 6,
2011 at 17:31
-
It may be simplistic of me but surely navy people are trained on boats and
stuff, airmen are trained to use and support aeroplanes and the army use
artillery and fight on the ground. There are some skill overlaps but not that
many. So why is a naval person – who has never had or needed any rifle
training – being sent with ground troops to one of the dryest areas on the
planet?
Incidentally all the tales I have heard about WWII had
consciencious objectors specialising in medical duties, which is exactly the
niche he had joined up and trained for, so who knows.
- July 6, 2011 at 15:48
-
‘Do atheists have morals?’
Yes, professing atheists do. However, the basis for their moral posturings
is open to debate, since a moral standard rests on the good/evil dichotomy
which they have to deny; all they can hang their moral stance upon is their
own personal scruples – and that the idea of killing is inhuman – not to
mention downright inconvenient for the poor family members and dependents.
As for this fellow, my own reaction is based on the heat-and-kitchen
dictum..
- July 7, 2011 at 01:29
-
Hmmm. Surely morals pre-date religion (humanism). I suspect that if they
didn’t we (humans) would have all killed each other long ago.
- July 7, 2011 at 04:38
-
Indeed, can we really be asked to believe that the Israelites were
wandering around thinking it was okay to murder, steal, lie, commit
adultery etc until God via Moses said “Oh no you don’t” (as well as some
odd stuff about not having graven images or worshiping other Gods, not
going to Tesco on Sunday etc). Then, en masse they all said “Of course,
what were we thinking!”
No.
And don’t even start me on the fact there is no evidence at all,
archaelogical or textual that the Israelites were ever in bondage in
Egypt, much less did they wander around for 40 years without anyone
noticing, so quite how god reckoned to bring them out of bondage a la the
first commandment, and I seem to remember how god was okay with ethnic
cleansing, Canaanites anyone? or how slavery or keeping virgin women of
defeated enemies for yourselves was fine.
No, I can do morality just fine without any help from the Bronze
age.
- July 7, 2011 at 11:23
-
Perhaps the basis for your morality rests more than you realise upon
those pesky Judaeo-Christian values that still permeate our culture –
you know – the Ten Commandments, the Sermon On The Mount and all
that.
These comments aren’t the appropriate place for a discussion
about theology – and I’m not in the remotest way inclined to bang my
head against that woefully familiar brick wall…
- July 7, 2011 at 16:39
-
Have you read the ten commandments lately?
1. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy
5. Honour your father and your mother.’
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
10. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house
One through four have little to do with morality, four you would
more or less biologically do anyway, six through ten did not apply to
non-Jews against who you could kill, lie, steal and “know” their women
to your heart’s content. Again, this is not morality as I recognise
it.
- July 7, 2011 at 11:24
-
Whilst on the topic of religion and how it can change it’s
definitions according to what it wants to promote, this one over at
MalPoets’ is quite apt – http://malpoet.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/the-seventh-commandment/
- July 7, 2011 at 11:44
-
If the Christian faith is as palpably flawed as you and Malpoet
consider it to be, then why even bother trying to discredit it?
-
July 7, 2011 at 15:39
-
oh I think I’m going to like this blog. We start with a story about
a Navy disciplinary issue and half way down the comments section (with
nary a mention of Nazi’s or Hitler or Stalinists) there is shimmy into
the source of an atheists ethics. Lovely!
Perhaps the
judeo/christian values were appropriated from standard cultural (or
even pagan) rules of the time. The ten commandments always struck me
as basic rules for communal living.
- July 7, 2011 at 16:47
-
July 6, 2011 at 15:44
-
sackcloth and ashes pretty much hits the nail on the head. Certainly in the
Army, regardlesss of whether you were joining as a driver, a cook or a typist,
you were told from the off that you were a soldier first and foremost. Hence
why everyone does the same basic training.
The same principle will apply in the Navy, they can be on detached service
anywhere and if it’s ‘every man to the walls,’ as it HAS been in Afghanistan,
complaining you joined as a submariner/bottle washer/whatever isn’t going to
cut much ice…
- July 6, 2011 at 15:26
-
The guy was a medic, and you tend to need a lot of them in the middle of a
shooting war.
Medics in the forces are having to carry weapons for personal protection –
owing to the fact that the opposition don’t really respect the Red Cross or
Red Crescent – but the chances of him actually having to kill someone in
theatre are pretty limited. But then he could very well have been using his
skills to treat wounded soldiers or marines, allied ISAF personnel, Afghan
troops, Afghan civilians, or even captured insurgents (who do get medical
treatment, as required by the Geneva Convention).*
I think the conschie thing is an excuse. He didn’t want to get into the
firing line, so he bottled it. I’ve seen examples of this before.
As for conscientious objection, it’s quite simple really. If you’ve got
moral qualms about shooting someone, or you don’t want to get embroilled in a
war you think is immoral, then don’t join up, either as a regular or a
reservist. Simples.
* For the record, I’m ex-TA, did a tour in Iraq in 2004, and I’ve still got
serving mates with Afghan experience.
- July 6, 2011 at 14:55
-
One question in my mind is why a pacifist (and there’s nothing wrong with
being a pacifist) would regard it acceptable to serve on a Navy submarine (a
device used for hunting and killing enemy shipping, with inevitable loss of
life, or as a platform for hiding and potentially launching ballistic missiles
in anger, with inevitable loss of life), but would object to having the
capacity to defend his patients in field combat conditions. To me, both
situations involve the potential to kill others in the name of defending Queen
and Country.
If you have pacifist beliefs, don’t join the armed services.
- July 19, 2011 at 11:47
-
How one persieves the world around us and how we respond to it changes
over time. I think it is possible for an 18yr old to join the armed forces
as a medic not fully realising the implications of this. He could have found
any number of ruses to get out of this deployment but chose to use this
opportunity to voice his concerns about what he believes is happening out
there as well as what would be expected of him.
- July 6, 2011 at 13:55
-
Isn’t a medical assistant just a nurse? You don’t need rifles on a
submarine, so presumably that’s why he never needed the training before. And
it’s difficult to hold/fire a rifle when carrying a stretcher. Something about
this tale does not ring true.
- July 6, 2011 at 13:45
-
Leaving aside the “well he would say that wouldn’t he”, as far as I can
remember the rules changed about medics a few years ago. It was the rule that
armed forces medixcal services did not carry weapons at any time, the rules
changed so they recieved weapon training to only protect their patients from
the less civilised loonie enemies they would encounter. I would imagine this
chap would fit into this catagory; being sent, as a medic to A, but armed to
protect his patients.
- July 6, 2011 at 13:20
-
Oops!
Should have said there was a cost implication. PVR’ing is not free.
Perhaps “There is a cost calculation…” in the first paragraph would have
made more sense.
CR.
- July 6, 2011 at 13:17
-
Daz,
It really is quite a long process to PVR (Premature Voluntary Release).
There is a calculation based on your trade, your length of service and your
rank, and the paperwork is almost endless. They don’t, having spent a small
fortune on your training, want you to quit and leave with ease.
Knowing that I wanted to complete my Colour Service in December 1987 I had
to give the army 12 months notice. Even leaving when your contract is up is a
palaver.
Like Anna, I wonder why they needed a navy medic in the middle of the
desert so badly. If the Armed Forces are anything like they were in my time,
there will be no shortage of volunteers.
I suspect this is an “example making” exercise.
(The military can be extremely petty on occasion).
CR.
- July
6, 2011 at 14:26
-
On occasion? My brief sojourn with the RNR suggested most of the time,
frankly.
- July 6, 2011 at 12:59
-
I struggle to see if this argument is necessarily applicable to a modern
day volunteer army though? Suppose the question is – if you suddenly have a
pang of conscience how easy is it to hand your notice in – I understand it’s
not as simple as it would be if you worked as a data input clerk…
http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/
-
July 6, 2011 at 12:58
-
I’ve always had a problem with conscientious objectors.
I have the same problem with pacifists, like the Amish, who live in one of
the best-armed and most aggressive nations that has ever existed, or like the
Irish who as neutrals sheltered behind the UK in WWII.
Their philosophy seems to be “We’re being attacked, but I don’t feel like
or don’t approve of fighting, so you can fight for me, thanks”.
In what way is this NOT just freeloading to save your own skin?
- July 6, 2011 at 12:30
-
“Do atheists not have morals?”
Oh Anna, please don’t go there. I am still traumatised by trying to get my
head around the weeks of mud slinging, which has been going on under the
Hitchen’s blogg on this very issue.
- July 6, 2011 at 13:53
-
“Do atheists not have morals?”
Yes, we do. No-one on this blog I suspect, breaks the laws ranging from
receiving stolen goods to abusing kids or murdering people. So far so
good.
We probably all believe it is wrong to take someone else’s property by
force or hurt them for our own gratification. Religious people may
additionally say that they think god is also against it and has made a
ruling for mankind that they obey. But I do not for one minute believe the
only thing restraining the religous is the thought that an omnipresent god
is watching them via divine CCTV or fear of detection and worldly
punishment. There is more at work than just this otherwise they would just
be restrained sociopaths.
So it is for us who do not believe in God.
- July 6, 2011
at 12:19
-
“‘Where would we be’, the argument runs, ‘if everybody squealed – ooh, I
couldn’t kill anybody, not I’.”
If everybody squealed it? No wars?
- July 6, 2011 at 12:24
- July 6, 2011 at 12:09
-
“I can’t help feeling that given the limited use a reluctant submariner
combatant would have been in the Kabul desert, the Navy could have found
another way of dealing with Michael Lyons.”
Agreed – but isn’t it likely the Admiralty will have felt it couldn’t let
someone get away with this because of the example it would set?
{ 32 comments }