Objectors of Convenience ?
- by Christian Duelund Grĉm
So the debate is finally on : What is the MNF to make of the so-called COs of convenience?
To be able to answer this question, we first of all have to present the definition of an objector of convenience. Based on the present laws and the way they are administered by the head of the Administration of COs, Aage Spindler, we can conclude that you have to be able to adhere to the legal claim that "participation in the Danish Defense, including the measure of emergency, is against your conscience." In other words, being an objector of convenience means that you have objected due to other reasons than conscience or ethics. Maybe you prefer to sleep at home with your girlfriend from having to stay 110 km from home, or perhaps you don't like the colours of the uniforms; maybe the work of a CO is simply more exciting than military jobs, and so forth.
Perhaps the arguments against objectors of convenience put forward by the MNF are a bit too narrow in perspective. Why, the result is the same whether you object due to reasons of conscience or to reasons of convenience. Still, the choices you make in becoming a CO show that the military isn't of your first priority, a fact that all members of the MNF can only be pleased about. Thus, there might be a tendency in the MNF to favour the system of conscientious objection that leads to a 'species' of objectors, who object because they have indeed done a lot of thinking on the subject. But isn't it more important to accept whatever reasons people may have for objecting, even if these are emotional reasons, than to put forward the somewhat 'elitist' view that when it comes to objection, the reasons of conscience/ethics are supposedly better?
All pro-objection and anti-military arguments are good arguments.