ABSTRACT: The philosopher of "dialogue" informs that the Association for religious freedom and the Association for the freedom of culture have formed a Committee for the "juridical recognition of conscientious objection". "It is a right" - the philosopher prophetically states - "that in the future society will not even need to be decided by law, because the increasing technicalization of weapons makes the draft less and less necessary. And when there will be no other armed forces in the world apart from the U.N., there will no doubt be sufficient volunteers willing to take on such noble task". Calogero next analyses the conditions which the law on conscientious objection will need to respect. Yes to a longer and more demanding service "if anything to prove to anyone that the (objector) is a serious champion of a remote ideal, not a lazybones...", no to any form of "inquisition" on the motivations of the objection, and no also to the claim of certain churches of having all their followers recognized as consc

ientious objectors. [The text is one of the excellent "books" which Guido Calogero wrote for some time on "Il Mondo", and which were then collected in a single book, published by Laterza].

(IL MONDO (2), 12 December 1961)

The association for religious freedom and the Association for the freedom of culture have formed a committee for the juridical recognition of conscientious objection. Its aim is to induce legislators to modify the current regulations, so that anyone who does not wish to kill others will not remain in prison for indefinite periods of time, since the very expiation of the sentence does not replace the military service, and is therefore repeated at each new refusal to carry it out.

It is a right that will not even need to be sentenced by law in the future society, because the increasing technicalization of weapons make the draft less and less necessary. When there shall be no other armed forces in the world but those of the United Nations, there will no doubt be sufficient volunteers willing to take on such noble task. In any case, conscientious objection is already legally recognized, to varying extents, in all advanced nations. One cannot see why the Italians should defend their national tradition by refusing to learn from others. Nor are those (like myself, for example) who believe that an incongruous right to resistance and civil insubordination should not be coherently admitted in addition to the duty to obey the laws of the State, accepted precisely as a democratic State, and to rebel against the State, condemned and rejected as tyrannical, contradicting themselves when they advocate the recognition of the right to be exempted from the compulsory military service. The question he

re is the mere juridical obligation, in an ambiguous area, at the borders with the State, where the realm of war starts, where the voice of the rule of law overrides the extra-legal one of power. And just like no one should be refused the right to abandon a State and go elsewhere (whence the archaic barbarity of every remaining legislation on citizenships, passports and visas, which hinder the free choice of the nations on the part of the individuals), no one should ever be forced by law to kill, which is the typical negation of every legal coexistence with other human beings.

Clearly, the exception finishes here. The day in which a conscientious objector refused, for example, to function as an unarmed policeman, or a policeman armed only with a good boxing technique or Japanese fighting technique as an alternative service, I would tell him to improve his knowledge of the necessary relations between persuasion and compulsion in every advanced society, and not to expect others to defend him with their force from a thief while he indulges in his dream of nonviolence. The alternative service which every conscientious objector has come to carrying out should be long and demanding, if anything to prove that he is a serious champion of a remote ideal, not a lazybones who simply wants to avoid the barracks or the front. Nor can one say that this inflicts a condemnation on the conscientious objector. The reality is that in this way conscientious objectors are freed not only from a greater risk of being killed (which is already something), but also from the duty of killing (which is much m

ore). Should they not, therefore, offer for this reason a compensation to the others, who continue not to subtract themselves to that tiresome duty?

I am in favour of the requests to make the alternative service long and demanding, to avoid conscientious objection from becoming a comfortable pretext for lazybones or neutralities. Vice versa, I would reject any form of inquisition on the reasons for which an individuals asks to benefit of the right to carry out a civil service instead of the military one. What should he be asked? The religious or ideological reasons for which he presents himself as a conscientious objector? In that case, better to establish that some reasons are valid and others are not, that is, transform the democratic State, which cannot discriminate individuals on account of their opinions, into an authoritarian State.

Or is someone suggesting to ascertain whether he is sincere? But in this sense everyone is sincere. Even a con-man is sincere in his wish to con other people. And if a person means to use his right to vote, no preliminary control can be required to ascertain that he is voting out of a sincere support of the constitutional order and not only because candidate X promised him a favour. What would happen in the composition of the Committee, and in the examinations before it! On the one hand, our friend Aldo Capitini would be besieged by requests of private lessons by would-be examination takers. On the other hand, generals and admirals would insist in participating in the Commission and would send to prison the more shy and honest candidates who mess up their examination despite the fact that they studied.

The problem is that certain churches could succumb to the temptation of seeing, vice versa, all their followers recognized as legitimate conscientious objectors, given their numerical exiguity, possibly exempting them from any alternative service. This would lead to a reversed form of racism, especially if candidates were asked to prove the fact of having been members of this church for many years (to avoid all this to become an awkward method to enhance the churches thus privileged) or the fact of having been born by parents belonging to the same church. In other words, the role of hierarchy applied to religious faith! These are the dangers of that group selfishness which the ecclesiastic spirit often boils down to.

Translator's notes

(1) Guido Calogero: 1904-1986): Italian philosopher. Developed a philosophy of praxis characterized by a strong ethical and civil commitment, based on the "principle of dialogue". "Lezioni di filosofia" (1946-47), "Logo e dialogo" (1950).

(2) Il Mondo: political, financial and cultural weekly magazine established in Rome in 1949 by Mario Pannunzio with lay and democratic characters. Discontinued in 1966, it was refounded by A. Benedetti in 1969.