Judge denies the Peace Tax Seven the right to a judicial review.
Brenda Broughton a retired teacher from Oxford was at the Royal Courts of Justice with six other claimants to hear the arguments. After a demonstration outside the court we crowded into both galleries in Court 2 and the Judge allowed some to sit in the court too. He was encouraging and the sincerely held beliefs of these seven people were not in doubt, though he seemed sceptical about them being keen to pay their taxes.
The Questions was could their beliefs allow them to divert some of their tax to a fund for peaceful purposes ? They hoped that Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, which gives freedom of belief AND the freedom to manifest those beliefs in practice, could allow this and even get the government to provide an alternative fund.
The fact that you hold such beliefs does not suffice as in Arrowsmith 1983 when there was not a close enough connection between Pat’s belief in pacifism and her action of handing out leaflets to soldiers inviting them to refuse to serve in N. Ireland.
Counsel for H.M. Taxes argued that the obligation to pay taxes is morally and religiously neutral and that the Strasbourg jurisprudence is clear and constant and we have international obligations to stick to this. He suggested the question was does paying taxes have a moral significance ? This suggested that there should be a bible text to support not paying as there was in the Williams case when is was allowed that they should be able to instruct the independent school they sent their children to to chastise them if they needed to be punished for misbehaviour. The Judge remarked that this was in the OT and seemed to understand the irony of bringing this case allowing physical violence as support for the present claimants argument.
The judge often seemed willing but the six cases which had previously had to be taken to Strasbourg remained in the way and despite remarking that political pressure were behind some of the judgements at Strasbourg, the judge decided that he could not allow this application.
He said "If I refuse you I think you will re-apply" and finally remarked that in refusing permission to take this case for judicial review he was speeding things up and that it would be more economical.
The claimants were disappointed and not convinced by his remarks. They will be deciding what to do in the next few days.
Sarah Lasenby
Brenda Broughton a retired teacher from Oxford was at the Royal Courts of Justice with six other claimants to hear the arguments. After a demonstration outside the court we crowded into both galleries in Court 2 and the Judge allowed some to sit in the court too. He was encouraging and the sincerely held beliefs of these seven people were not in doubt, though he seemed sceptical about them being keen to pay their taxes.
The Questions was could their beliefs allow them to divert some of their tax to a fund for peaceful purposes ? They hoped that Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, which gives freedom of belief AND the freedom to manifest those beliefs in practice, could allow this and even get the government to provide an alternative fund.
The fact that you hold such beliefs does not suffice as in Arrowsmith 1983 when there was not a close enough connection between Pat’s belief in pacifism and her action of handing out leaflets to soldiers inviting them to refuse to serve in N. Ireland.
Counsel for H.M. Taxes argued that the obligation to pay taxes is morally and religiously neutral and that the Strasbourg jurisprudence is clear and constant and we have international obligations to stick to this. He suggested the question was does paying taxes have a moral significance ? This suggested that there should be a bible text to support not paying as there was in the Williams case when is was allowed that they should be able to instruct the independent school they sent their children to to chastise them if they needed to be punished for misbehaviour. The Judge remarked that this was in the OT and seemed to understand the irony of bringing this case allowing physical violence as support for the present claimants argument.
The judge often seemed willing but the six cases which had previously had to be taken to Strasbourg remained in the way and despite remarking that political pressure were behind some of the judgements at Strasbourg, the judge decided that he could not allow this application.
He said "If I refuse you I think you will re-apply" and finally remarked that in refusing permission to take this case for judicial review he was speeding things up and that it would be more economical.
The claimants were disappointed and not convinced by his remarks. They will be deciding what to do in the next few days.
Sarah Lasenby
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
well meaning but rather silly
27.07.2005 10:44
Adam
Sensible and practical
28.07.2005 13:03
We want to pay all our taxes.
We're NOT saying that everyone should pick and choose how to spend all their tax. We're saying that war is different because it involves deliberate killing.
The government agrees; it already allows conscientious objection and free votes on capital punishment in Parliament. This is different from health and education which are party political issues.
Relatedly, we argue that there are non-violent ways you can "buy peace" with taxpayers' money.
Simon
Simon
Where our tax goes
28.07.2005 13:06
Brona
PS
28.07.2005 14:00
Simon
Silly votes
28.07.2005 14:51
As to voting, this only accommodates the majority. For a long time parliament has recognised that the minority with a deeply held conviction should have a right to be accommodated by the majority as far as it is possible. This is the principle behind the 1916 conscription act when parliament decided that if they were to pass a that they should also make provision for conscientious objectors. We merely wish for MPs to re-engage with this and give us back our rights.
Robin
e-mail:
robin@robin-brookes-design.co.uk
I hope they do
29.07.2005 10:41
1. Child benefit for illegitimate children.
2. Fertility treatment for women who've deliberately left it to an advanced age to start a family.
3. Generous pension schemes, holiday allowances and early retirement schemes for government employees.
4. Subsidised arts such as theatre, opera and orchestras, the patrons of which could easily afford to pay full price.
5. Museums and art galleries. I just never go to them, never been interested.
6. Lung cancer treatment for people who have chosen to smoke.
7. Any benefits for foreign nationals who have contributed to the tax and benefit system for less than 3 years.
8. Any health treatment for foreign nationals who have contributed to the tax and benefit system for less than 3 years.
What would be so good about the system is that we would all respect and celebrate each other's choice of things not we wouldn't pay for. After all, nobody would be so judgemental as to criticise someone else's list would they? You won't pay for weapons, I won't pay for unemployment benefit. We're all different, that's what makes the world a wonderful, diverse place. Or would some people's choices be deemed acceptable, and others unacceptable? Very sinister that would be, wouldn't it?
kenny
Well while we're at it....
30.07.2005 22:30
Boab
Never heard that one before
11.08.2005 10:55
The other thing you'll need to do is come up with some idea of what you want your taxes spent on instead. Presumably you don't want the unemployed, recent immigrants, and illegitimate children to just die in the streets. So you need a scheme which respects your conscience but also safeguards a decent, humane society. On this basis, war tax resisters would (mostly) be happy to pay towards nonviolent methods which make the world a safer place, in the way the military is supposed to do. One reason why there wasn't a post-Soviet bloodbath in the Baltic, like there was in the Balkans, was because of the work of a conflict prevention agency whose annual running costs were about $1.4 million. The cost of a single US Stealth bomber could keep such an agency in business for over 700 years. When the Stealth bombers went into Kosovo to contribute to the $40+ billion worth of war-damage, the US military had about 20+ of them - built at a cost which could have kept the same conflict prevention agency in business since the Stone Age. The US military didn't think they had enough of them though. Figures like this are making conflict prevention quite a fashionable idea even outside pacifist circles, but it never gets in the news. Wars which don't happen don't make headlines.
Alternatively, you could save yourself the bother and agree that deliberate killing is a more serious issue than unemployment benefit. It's hardly sinister to point out that dole offices do not bomb the unemployed. For what it's worth, the difference has been accepted in British law since 1916. This is why they allowed conscripts to object to military service in the first place. They kept on paying out unemployment benefit though.
Simon
e-mail:
srheywood@ukonline.co.uk
Homepage:
http://www.peacetaxseven.com