Reply
Mon 22 Aug, 2005 07:26 am
Hello folks. I'm back.
I've just been in jail for a few weeks because I refused to serve in the military. I though I'd give my reasons, and maybe we can discuss them.
The reason I refused is not because I'm a pasifist. It's because I've identified the true enemy. The true enemy is fear. An enemy is merely the manifestation of your fears, and no matter how many enemies you strike down there will always be a new one, unless you defeat the fear in your heart.
I do not advocate pasifism, allthough I do advocate non-violence. Pasifism indicates a passive attitude, my attitude is active and engaging. By the time the foreign army is at your border the war is already lost. No one has ever won anything by sheer force of arms. So I refused to serve, not from pasifism, but because I am a warrior in the service of peace rather than turmoil.
I also wrote a song about it some time ago. Here's the corus:
We run until we reach the frontline
And we make killing our art
'Cause this war is an easier fight
Than the war in our hearts
thinking, will post later, glad to see you.
Re: pasifism
Cyracuz wrote:Hello folks. I'm back.
I've just been in jail for a few weeks because I refused to serve in the military. I though I'd give my reasons, and maybe we can discuss them.
Cyracuz, why do they jail you in Norway for refusing to serve in the Norweigan military?
Norway's military:
http://www.travelblog.org/World/no-mil.html
BBB
Re: pasifism
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Cyracuz wrote:Hello folks. I'm back.
I've just been in jail for a few weeks because I refused to serve in the military. I though I'd give my reasons, and maybe we can discuss them.
Cyracuz, why do they jail you in Norway for refusing to serve in the Norweigan military?
BBB
Well, I suppose it's because the Swedes or Finns prefer to jail their own folks... :wink:
Welcome back, Cyracuz!
May I ask the same as BB? (As far as I know, Norway recognises conscientious objection since as early as 1900.)
Walter
Walter Hinteler wrote:Welcome back, Cyracuz!
May I ask the same as BB? (As far as I know, Norway recognises conscientious objection since as early as 1900.)
That's what I was wondering about, too.
I've known many pacifists who serve as battleground medics instead of carrying a weapon.
BBB
I think it was the Wobblies or at least a pacifist group around the time of WWI who declared that a bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends.
goodfielder wrote:I think it was the Wobblies or at least a pacifist group around the time of WWI who declared that a bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends.
great quote Mr Fielder, btw my grandfather was a card carrying Wobblie.
Re: Walter
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I've known many pacifists who serve as battleground medics instead of carrying a weapon.
I used to write the 'legal defense' for quite a couple (when then was needed ages back here. Now you just sign a piece of paper and then work e.g. in hospitals, schools, kindergartens, community projects etc etc etc)
Is military service a mandatory for the citizens? Kinda like in some countries where you have to serve 2 years?
Norway has mandatory military service of 18 months (I belive it still is - here in Germany meanwhile ... 9 [?] month only) for men.
dyslexia wrote:goodfielder wrote:I think it was the Wobblies or at least a pacifist group around the time of WWI who declared that a bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends.
great quote Mr Fielder, btw my grandfather was a card carrying Wobblie.
Good for him Dys - a man well ahead of his time indeed. One Big Union!
Walter, the mandatory service-time is twelve months.
And yes, sometimes concientious objection is recognized, but not always. In my case I served the twelve months when I was younger, and now they wanted me in on a three week repetition, wich I refused since my views have changed over the years. Thus I am, by definition, a waring man, and subject to different laws. Butt I'll change that. I'll change the entire system if need be.
Btw, a friend of mine refused the military all together, he was never enlisted, and still he's been to jail for it two times already, and will likely be arrested again. Another friend was drafted, and he refused. He was never charged. So there really is no consitency to it.
I no longer believe that it is appropriate to "take arms against outrageous fortune, and by opposing end them". I don't think it can be done. On the other hand, I don't think it is neccesary to "suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". There is no such thing as outrageous fortune. Only outrageous people, who see everything through their screen of outrageousness, as if it was a pair of glasses.
Had a little Hamlet fit there... Ops..
Yup, you had a little Shakespeare in there. But the first quote should be "by taking arms against
a sea of troubles and by opposing end them." The second part of the quote is correct.
I helped two of my friends to get recognised after they did their active service: one was a volunteer, the other a conscript - one (the volunteer) 16 years after he left services, the other shortly afterwards.
Both were recognised: the first, while being on a reserve exercise, the second just before he had to go :wink:
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace