Yes, but the issue of killing other people is important to you. Other people might have other ethical concerns that they feel equally strongly about. Not that I disagree with your ideals, but I think the idea of objecting to a particular portion of taxation is, frankly, bollocks.
I'd say that constituted disagreement with our ideals! British law currently states that everyone has basic freedom of conscience. The law recognises that in a tolerant society there has to be some give and take in these things. For the greater good of society, the government is legally allowed to overrule freedom of conscience. But it's only allowed to do so in a limited way, if there is a pressing need. My problem is deliberate killing. Deliberate killing is already a legally serious matter. In peace time it amounts to murder or manslaughter. In war time, the issue of personal conscience and deliberate killing remains basic to the law - so basic, in fact, that the state allowed conscientious objection throughout two world wars, when the government had every reason to get as many people as possible into the army. So the government is pretty keen on the basic idea that people who can't kill shouldn't be forced to, even in wartime. But for some reason the state doesn't follow through on the logic. I still have to pay for the weapons, although in peacetime you don't have to be the murderer yourself to be guilty; if I buy a gun for a murderer, then I am breaking the law. This doesn't add up. There are many fairly simple ways the government could take my beliefs into account. Defence is a pressing need, but there are many ways the government could spend my taxes making the country safer, without spending them on weapons and violence. If the government wants to force me to pay for war, it has to prove that there is a pressing need. In our view the government can't do this. There is no pressing need. So they are breaking the law. So legally it's not simply that the issue is important to me; it's that the basic idea is already uniquely important in law, and it wouldn't undermine the whole system - in fact, it would make it a lot more consistent and humane - to make the small necessary adjustment.
Maybe you should have read my third post as well Giles... I like to discuss things civily without attacking people or getting techy. What's eating you lately? I'm gonna have to get out my tickling stick Thats the exact point. They lied about the reason we went to war. They told us they were taking us to war because of a report that said Iraq could dispense WMD in minutes. This was a lie, not that we believed them anyway It's very important to stand up to the goverment and keep the pressure up. They need to know that when the lie and fuck up that we know what they are doing and will hold them accountable for it. p.s. Simon? Are you off the Activist Network?.... just me being nosey cos I put a link up (http://www.activistnetwork.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=104) and wondered if anyone had found us
