EDM 116
Get your MP to sign
EDM 116: Conscientious Objectors and Taxation
That this House…
recognises that Parliament has traditionally acknowledged and protected the right of conscientious objectors to avoid complicity in killing in times of compulsory military service; notes that compulsory military service is unlikely to be re-introduced; notes that all taxpayers are currently made complicit in killing by the requirement to pay for war and war preparations via tax contributions; believes that a system should be established to enable those with a conscientious objection to war to perform their civic duty to pay taxes with a clear conscience; welcomes the action of seven conscientious objectors, the Peace Tax Seven, in seeking a judicial review of the current laws on taxation, which take no account of issues of conscience.
You can contact your MP at their constituency address or by writing to:
(Your MP), House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
Note from Oliver Haslam, Campaigns & Parliamentary Officer
"I would be very grateful if you let me know the response you receive from your MP so I can coordinate further lobbying activity in the future.
"Thank you for supporting Conscience with its work and please contact me if you need any further information or I can help in any other way."
|
| Common arguments against supporting the peace tax |
Your MP may well respond with a reason for not signing the EDM. However, they do not necessarily know the issue in detail and it is well worth persuing them with a further letter. An MP who does not agree with our principles may nevertheless support our human right to dissent from a majority decision which offends our conscience. Here are some common arguments and suitable replies, more information can be got from other areas of this site and from the Conscience website.
(1) Floodgates:
"You would set a precedent which would be impossible to maintain. If you allowed people to dictate what their tax money is spent on, it would undermine the principles of our tax system. People would want to prevent their tax money being used for policies they disagree with or services they do not use.'
Answer: this is not what we are asking for and therefore we do not think it sets a precedent. There are many things our taxes are spent on that we do not agree with but we accept in general that governments must be free to determine how to spend taxes. Ours is not a matter of preference but of conscience. It would be hard for someone to argue that it was a matter of conscience to refuse to pay for state education because they send their child to a private school!
There may be other matters of deeply held conviction where conscientious objectors would not want to pay for certain actions through their taxes. As far as we know there are currently no other conscientious objectors taking this approach, possibly because government expenditure in these areas is minimal. For instance abortion or vivisection, but these different groups would have to argue their case. In practice we think that their consciences are more compromised by other activities in society, such as animal testing by pharmaceutical companies or retaining a law allowing abortion on demand. Of course nurses and doctors are free to refuse to take part in an abortion. Boycotting products is a favoured line of action with anti-vivisectionists.
Conscientious objection to paying taxes for war is unique in that we are considerably affected by the vast amount of money spent preparing for war and the devastating effects of war. We are involved through paying our taxes and there is no form of relief from this burden.
(2) Too Unwieldy to Administer:
"Such a system would be complicated and costly for government to administer."
Answer:
Tax inspectors already make complicated calculations for Gift Aid and National Insurance. To put 10% of a tax payers money into a ring fenced fund for use other than war is not going to be as complicated as that. Conscience suggest a compromise which is to calculate the average amount spent by each taxpayer in the year and for each conscientious objector, divert that amount into the peace tax fund. This would make it very simple.
(3) Undermining the Defence of the Realm:
"If some taxpayers were to decline to contribute to the defence of the realm, from which they still benefit, this would mean other taxpayers were in effect subsidising them. Nevertheless the objectors would continue to benefit from this public service."
Answer:
We question whether stock piling weapons and assuming a threatening posture defends us or provokes other countries/factions into becoming our enemies. War never really works and most certainly causes death and destruction on a huge scale. In the long term the effects of war such as chemical contamination and explosive remnants of war continue and the grievances remain unanswered.
We believe that putting the money into non-violent methods of conflict resolution and into research to improve these methods is more effective. It is also undeniably cost effective and promises greater stability the long term. So we think we would be contributing to our country's security.
(4) Ballot Box
"People can indirectly determine what level of taxation should be and how it should be spent by electing parties that share their political beliefs and attitudes."
Answer:
The problem with the ballot box is that it does not answer the needs of a minority who find that they cannot go along with the majority for reasons of conscience. An issue like peace tax diversion is not going to figure large on any party's list of priorities on their manifesto. In the past parliament has recognised this and a fundemental democratic principle is that the needs of such a minority should be accommodated as far as it does not interfere with the majority.
There are very few ways a minority can bring an issue before parliament for them to consider. One of them is through judicial review. Another is through lobbying government, which Conscience has been set up do. Yet another is by Private Members Bill which has been tried in the past.
(5) Pointless action
"I don't think anything useful would be gained by putting these proposals into practice. It would not reduce spending on the military, merely place the burden on other tax payers."
Answer:
The establishment of a peace tax fund would be a significant keystone in moving government thinking away from war and towards a new way of dealing with conflict. The fund would have to be spent on anything but war preparations. Preferably we would like it spent on the alternatives to war, but this would have to be decided by parliament.
Our governments will not change their entrenched methods of confronting conflict unless they are pushed into it by popular pressure. This would give them a clear signal that public opinion believes that non violent ways to resolve conflict should be sought.
The existence of a peace tax fund would be an unavoidable reminder to any party in government to consider carefully the methods and solutions they employ in response to conflict.
|
|
|
