PT7 AT THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS HEARING
Simon Heywood and Robin Brookes went to the 93rd Session of the Human Rights Committee in Geneva at the beginning of this month. They were invited by Conscience and Peace Tax International (CPTI) to voice their complaint that Britain does not accommodate conscientious objection to military taxation.
UN representative for CPTI, Derek Brett was pleased to get a chance for British war tax resister/peace tax campaigners to state their case to the Human Rights Committee. He has been the lone voice for conscientious objectors at the UN for many years and this was the first time ever that COs have been before the Committee. He managed to get a two minute slot for Robin Brookes to deliver the essence of what conscientious objection to military taxation is about to a packed session at the Palais Wilson. Text as follows:
I am a member of the board of Conscience and Peace Tax International and of Conscience the UK peace tax campaign. The latter has 2,500 members who, along with many others, have a conscientious objection to paying taxes for military preparations and war. I am also one of a group of British citizens - the Peace Tax Seven - who are bringing a test case to the European Court of Human Rights regarding the breach of our freedom of thought, conscience and religion. I must emphasise - we do not ask to be excused from paying part of our taxes. Rather, we wish for it to be put to peaceful uses.
If I were called up to military service, I would refuse on moral and religious grounds. I am not being conscripted into the armed forces, but I am being conscripted into my country’s military exploits, through the taxes I pay.
To pay for somebody else to kill is as bad as committing the act oneself. This is recognised in law and morality. Paying for war has been deeply distressing for me for many years. I am personally implicated when my taxes are used to deliberately kill other human beings and I do nothing to resist or prevent that.
The final straw for me was Britain’s collusion in the Iraq war. I felt no longer able to pay my taxes until my conscientious status is recognised by my government and they provide a ring-fenced ‘peace fund’ into which an appropriate proportion of my taxes are deposited.
My current status is that I am awaiting bailiffs for a third time and they will seize my possessions. I cannot collude with the stupidity and barbarism of war. I cannot consent to my money being spent on weapons when there are intelligent, proven methods of resolving conflict non-violently which our government should be investing in.
The right of conscientious objection to military service has long been upheld in Britain. Conscientious objectors have been given alternative service to contribute to society in other ways. This is what we are calling for - to have our taxes put to alternative service to the benefit of our fellow citizens and for world peace.
CPTI were one among a number of NGOs briefing the Committee on the UK, France and Spain. In a lunchtime seminar, NGOs were able to expand on their morning presentations and to answer questions from Human Rights Committee members. Simon Heywood led this with the following:
A significant and increasing number of UK citizens object in conscience to compulsory military taxation. The essence of the objection is that compulsory military taxation is a form of military conscription, in just the same way as I become legally and morally guilty of murder if I pay for the services of a professional assassin. As such, financial conscription has effectively replaced physical conscription in the UK. The right to conscientious objection applies equally to physical and financial conscription, for the same reasons. This is not a political issue; it is an issue of personal morality and conscience which engages individuals across the political spectrum.
However, the UK tax system is highly centralised and offers no recourse to military tax objectors. Most taxpayers pay income tax through their employers into a central fund managed and distributed by the state. Employers are naturally reluctant to challenge military taxation directly on their employees' behalf. Some dozens of taxpayers have nevertheless challenged the tax system directly by withholding tax payments, facing prosecution and distraint as a result. However, even this course of action is open only to a few. There has been no systematic study of the total numbers of actual objectors in the UK, but judging by the levels of active support for UK peace tax campaigns such as Conscience and the Peace Tax Seven, they are to be reckoned in the thousands rather than hundreds.
In our recent related action in the UK High Court, the government argued that British taxpayers do not pay tax to the military at all. We reject this argument. Around 10% of UK government expenditure goes to the military, and obviously this money comes from taxpayers or it comes from nowhere. The case was referred on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, to whom we are now applying.
Conscientious objectors to military taxation are not, I emphasise, seeking to abdicate any of their responsibilities as citizens or as taxpayers. We want to pay all the tax we owe. Alternative, non-combatant service is offered to, and expected from, objectors to physical conscription. In the same way, we are, so to speak, not seeking outright exemption from tax, so much as a transparent guarantee of alternative non-combatant disbursement of it. The continued, unnecessary and disproportionate refusal of the UK to enable its taxpaying citizens to fulfil their public duties in good conscience constitutes a violation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as guaranteed under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Three members of the committee asked sensible questions and were genuinely interested. One said later "It is a long road ahead for you, but we will get there in the end."
Over the afternoon and next day, the Human Rights Committee questioned Britain over its human rights record. This is done every four or so years with every member country. The committee aimed some fierce questioning at around 20 UK government representatives on 31 matters including why it had not incorporated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into domestic law; lethality of rubber bullets (AEPs); what measures to stop another killing like that of Jean Charles de Menezes; removal of persons to countries where they may face torture; HR of persons taken into custody in British run detention facilities abroad (like Abu Musa in Iraq); detention without charge; Right to a fair trial - 48 hour detention without access to a lawyer, 28 day (not just the 42 days currently proposed) detention without charge, ASBOs and their use; laws to combat terrorism and their effect on freedom of expression.
