A group of seven UK taxpayers are going to court for the right not to pay for war. The PEACE TAX SEVEN are a group of seven ordinary people who are challenging current UK tax policy in the High Court to with regard to military expenditure. Each member of the PEACE TAX SEVEN is unable in conscience to contribute to military spending by the UK government; they are conscientious objectors. Current UK tax policy makes all taxpayers complicit in mass killing if they do their civic duty and pay their taxes; or it makes criminals of them if they follow their conscience, and refuse to fund war. Individually, each of the seven has already challenged the law as it stands, facing prosecution and legal penalties, sometimes repeatedly, and sometimes over a period of many years. Some have been to court for non-payment of taxes, only to see their defences ruled out; one was told that his defence was logical, but not legal. Now, coming together as a group, the PEACE TAX SEVEN are seeking a judicial review of current policy, in order to overturn current practice, and establish the legal right for individual taxpayers to direct a relevant proportion of their tax away from unaccountable military uses, and towards peacebuilding, international development, and the many alternatives to war. The underlying principle - the principle of freedom of conscience - is a basic human right. The UK tax system forces complicity in war on pacifists, Buddhists, Quakers, and others who are compelled towards peace by belief, by instinct, or by simple humanity. In doing so, the tax system disregards freedom of conscience, and undermines fundamental aspects of religious, moral and human identity. Read the rest of the story here: http://www.activistnetwork.org.uk/ What do you think?
It's a neat idea but they will never win ... on that basis you could opt out of just about anything, like paying for the welfare state or subsidising art...
yeah it is really good and it's good to hear about people thinking and taking action themselves, but if the Party doesn't like it, they will never win.
I agree but the argument that will be used to counter them is that "defence" spending is for everyone's good just as welfare and art spending are, and that we can't pick and choose our taxes since there are already methods to change government policy in a democracy so we must accept the policy decisions of the democratically accountable government. That's the argument they will use, but it is of course bollocks because there is absolutely no difference between the defence policy of any mainstream political party with any hope of power... They're raising an important point and for that reason they get my wholehearted support.
I guess thats where the term elected dictatorship comes in to force.... The thing is here, that we protested againt the war and they took us to war anyway. They spent our money without our consent... our right to protest was upheld, but our views ignored. Yeh I agree its a good point well worth making.
If you can donate your money to a specific charity then why can't you pay your taxes to a certain area like elementary education?
Whilst I agree in principal, it would not be very fair to say that people could opt out of paying tax towards wars, but not other things. Although I'm not currently a tax payer their are many things I'd be happy to fund (public services, welfare etc) yet any other things I wouldn't as well as wars (conreating over our countryside, paying private companies to run public services etc), and many people would have different views on where their money should go, and some would be very narrow minded or selfish.
you will never win???? .. sorry but what a crock of shit, such a lame attitude and a crap comment. you will never win if you never try .. i support these people. you may not change the world yourself but if enough of you stand up then you will make a hell of a difference. Take Greenpeace for example and they way they started out and the things they have achieved and are still achieving. I am surprised at you jon.
I think this is a great move as I've said for a long time we should have complete control over where out money goes. Many here have said this is undemocratic, even comparing it to the third reich , but the truth remains that government forces us to pay (a great deal of) money for causes that we don't neccessarily agree with or believe in. Give people the choice and freedom to run their own lives and they shall do so very well. Everyone knows that power is a very dangerous thing when concentrated in the hands of the few and that is exactly what our so called democracy does and something Labour are looking to do more and more of. In the words of citizen Smith "Power to the people"
That's inevitable if you have any form of government whatsoever. There's absolutely no way out of that in a modern society. Even assuming the most optimistic ideal of regional/local devolution, you'd still have an infrastructure that needed funding. Who's going to pay for the legal system to be maintained, for example? What if I was an anarchist (little 'a') and didn't believe in the legal system or want to fund it? Such is the way of the world.
I agree there are some things that are by and large impartial of any politicial bias, such as the legal system. There are however a great many things that can and should be outside the control of those in westminster.
Hello all A few answers/comments on these points. 1) Opting out of other tax spending (welfare state / art etc.) The difference here is that military spending is the only point at which tax is spent deliberately killing other people. The state already accepts that people’s private morality should be taken into account on this issue (you can be a conscientious objector to ordinary military service, for example). So we argue that this principle should be extended to paying for killing. This is because, if my tax pays for a cluster bomb to drop on a residential area of Baghdad, killing and maiming tens of helpless civilians, then I might as well be dropping the bomb myself. So my government is forcing me to kill people. This is not tolerable. 2) The party may not like it, but this is a question of laws which have already been passed - the UK Human Rights Act of 1998. We’re not saying exactly that the government should make radical changes to the law. We’re saying the government is failing to keep to the spirit of the law as it stands today, because the law upholds freedom of conscience and respect for human life. 3) “Elected dictatorship” - In the US there is a Constitution and lots of checks and balances which limit the power of the president/ruling party. In Britain the “constitution” sort of exists, but it’s a relatively vague idea, and the ruling party gets to do more or less what it wants. The British prime minister is much more powerful inside Britain than the US president is inside the US. And as Claire says all the major British parties (like the major US parties) are more or less agreed on defence policy anyway. The courts are one of the few ways a citizen can hold the British government to account. 4) Defence spending “for everyone’s good” - yes indeed. In many ways the most important point to make is that there are LOADS of ways in which you can spend money on defence without firing a shot. (1) You can deal directly and nonviolently with the causes of war - poverty, injustice, bad government and so on. These are reasons why people go to war 99.9 % of the time, and there is (almost?) always something you can do about these underlying issues without violence. (2) You can train experts to spot trouble situations before they erupt into crisis, and then send them in to work out peaceful solutions. This is all difficult to do, but not as difficult as war. In the long run, you get more peace for your pound this way, than if you wait until a crisis collapses into violence, and then go in with incredibly expensive and destructive weapons systems, and make the violence ten times worse. This was tried in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Planners thought the soldiers would be there for weeks or months. They’re stuck there now for years and possibly decades. Why? Because the war didn’t solve the underlying economic, social or political problems: it made them worse. Now, in all these places, the choice remains a grim one, between martial law or total chaos. Quite apart from anything else, this is unfair on the armed forces themselves - their lives are in danger in a foreign country doing a policing job which ultimately could have been avoided, and they have no choice in the matter. In South Africa and Eastern Europe and Northern Ireland (since 1995), by contrast, there are still serious problems, but people have managed to maintain a broad commitment to nonviolence, and there are no US or British troops on the streets. So in fact we’re not relying on others to pay for the army to protect us. On the contrary: we want to protect others by paying for the expertise to stop the wars from happening. If anyone wants to read more about the alternatives to war, we’ve put loads of material on our website (www.peacetaxseven.com). Many thanks for the interest anyway - spread the word! Simon Peace Tax Seven
