A person who objects to participating in, or funding, war for ethical or religious reasons. Conscientious objection to military service is a widely recognised human right.
Back to the top
This phrase is used as a shorthand for the legal right we seek to secure to allow us to pay the military part of taxes to something that does not involve the intentional killing of other human beings.
Back to the top
The term we use for efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts peacefully. There are a wide variety of ways to help stop violent conflicts occurring in the first place, ways to bring conflicts to an end and ways to reduce the chances of violence erupting again. Conflict prevention and peacebuilding initiatives are more effective and cost-effective at bringing a lasting peace - not just a gap between wars.
Back to the top
A person who feels driven by their conscience to refuse to pay the military part of their taxes. Paying for someone else to kill is as objectionable and immoral as doing it oneself for those people with a conscientious objection to paying for war.
Back to the top
No, we are not seeking to pay less tax than anyone else. But we believe that people who are ethically or religiously opposed to war (conscientious objectors) should be allowed a peaceful use for the military part of their taxes. conscience is campaigning for a law to secure this right.
Back to the top
Everybody pays taxes. You may not have a paid job, or may be living below the tax threshold, but you're still funding the military through indirect taxes, like VAT and fuel tax. In fact, indirect taxes account for a greater proportion of Government revenue than income tax. We want to secure the right to a peaceful tax option for all voters.
Back to the top
We seek to gain the right for conscientious objectors to redirect the military part of their taxes to peace-building work, so that they are allowed to exercise freedom of conscience. As such, we are a human rights campaign. You don't need to be a conscientious objector yourself to support the human rights of others.
Back to the top
There is no question of 'opting out' or paying less tax. Conscientious objectors want to pay their tax - but with a clear conscience. They will not pay less or more tax under our proposals, just the military part of their taxes will be directed to non-military programmes - this would be their contribution to security and defence.
Back to the top
Our case is based on a recognised human rights - not political decisions like paying taxes for state or private education, or not wanting to pay for the NHS because you have private medical insurance. The right to withhold one's physical service to the military and the right to refuse to kill are clearly matters of conscience. We want to make these human rights meaningful in the modern world.
The idea that the rights of a minority should not be denied by the collective 'needs' of the majority has already been established in law and practice. Conscientious objection to military service was first recognised by Parliament in 1916 in the Military Conscription Act. In a world where medical practitioners have the right today to refuse to perform abortion procedures if it conflicts with their conscience and recognised conscientious objectors in both world wars were allowed some form of 'alternative service' to the military service that conscription required all we are asking for is to be able to pay tax with a clear conscience. To pay tax that does not have the intended purpose of killing.
Back to the top
Conscientious objectors would still be contributing to society's defence by funding efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts. Everybody stands to benefit from this investment in tackling the causes of conflict. In fact we believe non-military security initiatives to be more effective and cost-effective than a military approach.
Back to the top
We disagree. The UK's military spending acts to increase our insecurity. The UK's possession of nuclear weapons of mass destruction; our stated willingness to use them; our role as the second largest arms trading country, subsidised by taxpayers' money, is a threat to the security of the world. Conflict prevention is cheaper, more effective and does not promote resentment in the same way as a military stance.
Back to the top
We disagree, but you have missed the point of our campaign. Although reduced military spending would be welcomed our aim is specifically to enable conscientious objectors not to pay for war. Government would still be able to set military spending at the level it wished - but not use CO's money for it.
Back to the top
At the moment we all support the military with our taxes, regardless of our beliefs. For conscientious objectors there is no moral difference between dropping a bomb and paying someone else to do it. This principle is accepted in law: someone who pays for a murder to be committed is as guilty as the person who actually commits it.
Back to the top
The money would be spent on non-military security and peace-building initiatives.
Back to the top
Parliament has recognised the rights of conscientious objectors since 1916, when it established the right of conscientious objection to military service. We are asking Parliament to give meaningful recognition to the right conscientious objection at a time when we are forced to support the military with our taxes rather than our bodies. Over 100 parliamentarians in the UK already support our proposal, including MPs, MEPs and members of the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales.
Back to the top
The nature of warfare has changed. The Gulf War, for example, was fought by professional soldiers using high-tech weapons. Today, conscription is not of our bodies but of our taxes and the law needs to be updated to reflect this.
Back to the top
Parliament already passes tax money to 'Quangos' (Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations). The establishment of a Non-Military Security Fund (into which the taxes would be paid) is consistent with this model.
Back to the top
This is not a party political issue, it is a question of conscience. Parliament has long had a tradition of allowing MPs to have a free vote (i.e. MPs are not asked to follow the party line) on issues of conscience such as the death penalty, abortion or foxhunting.
is supported by parliamentarians from across the political spectrum. Several 10-minute-rule Bills have been read in the House of Commons but each has failed.
Back to the top
Government figures show how our taxes are spent.
Back to the top
The MoD budget for 1996-97 is £21.9 billion. The UK has an electorate of 43.5 million, all of whom pay taxes of taxes of one sort or another. Therefore, the average contribution to the military budget can be calculated by dividing the MoD budget by the number of voters - this equals £503 per person for the 1996-97 tax year.
Back to the top
Considering the complexities of the tax system, and schemes such as Gift Aid to facilitate charitable giving, our proposals would not prove too taxing for Inland Revenue officials. This is a red herring but also misses the point of our proposals. It will not be necessary to ensure the individual £10 notes a conscientious objector do not go to the military. Simple calculations using the number of registered conscientious objectors, the average tax payment each voter makes to the military reveals how much of total tax revenue should be deposited in a fund for non-military security programmes.
Back to the top
With a list of registered conscientious objectors the Government would be able to easily calculate how much taxpayers' money should be in the Non-Military Security Fund so they will know exactly how it will effect their spending plans. If conscientious objectors were able to register their objection to paying tax for war with Inland Revenue via their Tax Return the Government would know how many COs there are, how much tax they are paying, and how much of that tax would usually be destined for military purposes. Another red herring.
Back to the top
Yes, there are several:
1 - The argument that the rights of a minority can be denied by the collective 'needs' of the majority has already been lost in the UK. Conscientious objection to military service was first recognised by Parliament in 1916 in the Military Conscription Act. It is a widely recognised human right.
2 - If you pay someone to kill another human being you are guilty of a crime - you do not have to wield the knife or pull the trigger yourself. Conscientious objectors to war find state sanctioned killing by the military deeply affronts their beliefs and want no part of it. That includes financing it.
3 - In both world wars recognised conscientious objectors were allowed to perform an 'alternative service' to the military service that conscription required. They performed work which was non-military in nature but was recognised as contributing to the safety and security of their community and country. Their personal human rights were respected and were not outweighed by the perceived collective needs of the majority. All we are asking for is to be able to pay tax with a clear conscience and in this way perform an alternative service that contributes to safety and security but does not have the intended purpose of killing anyone.
4 - The precedent for 'diverting' taxes has already been set with covenanting to charity such as with the Gift Aid scheme administered by the Inland Revenue. If you donate to a particular charity, the charity can, with your permission, claim back the income tax which you have already paid on the donation. For every £1 you donate the charity can claim a further 28p in tax from the Government. If you donate enough to charity the charity could effectively claim back all the income tax you have paid on your earnings and use it for charitable purposes.
In addition to establishing a precedent for diverting tax the Gift Aid scheme shows that Inland Revenue really are more than capable of running some quite complicated and extensive schemes - but they still use 'too difficult' as an excuse for being unable to consider our peace tax proposals.
5 - The green tariff
You can pay a green tariff for electricity produced from renewable sources - wind and solar power etc. You still remain hooked up to the national grid just as before, and you use whatever electricity happens to be in the grid near your house. You do not expect to be using the actual electricity produced from some distant windfarm - you may well be using electricity from the polluting coal fired power station down the road. However, the principal has been established that the ethical customer can pay for an ethical service even though all the electricity is in one big pool called the national grid.
Paying for the military should be similar. All of our taxes go into one big pool called the consolidated fund to pay for public services. Conscientious objectors should be able to get a service which does not offend their conscience in the form of non-military security initiatives.
6 - Medical practitioners have the right to refuse to perform abortion procedures if it conflicts with their conscience. The collective needs of society do not outweigh the rights of the individual in this case.
7 - If capital punishment were re-introduced no-one could be forced into the role of executioner. Again, the collective needs of society do not outweigh the rights of the individual in this case.
8 - Sikhs are legally entitled to wear a turban when riding a motorbike, instead of a safety crash helmet. The collective needs of society do not outweigh the rights of the individual in this case either.
Back to the top
