Islam4UK has been pilloried and banned

For many the plan to have a demonstration by an Islamist group attacking the actions of soldiers in Wootton Bassett, where the bodies of servicemen are received, is offensive and should be stopped. But should there be a level of protection for soldiers that trumps freedom of speech, asks ethicist David Rodin.

Many people believe that the invasion of Iraq was unjust and a growing number question the legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan, yet many of those same people passionately hold that those who served in those wars should be honoured as heroes.

The controversy over Islam4UK’s criticism of British soldiers in their aborted Wootton Bassett march challenges us to consider whether these two views are really coherent.

Just because soldiers have legal impunity does not mean they should be exempt from moral evaluation Islam4UK banned Islamist group plans march

Going to war without sufficient reason is a terrible crime because it involves killing and maiming people – both civilians and soldiers – who have done nothing to deserve this. That is why debates over the justice and legality of war are among the most important any democracy can have.

We have no problem criticising particular wars, or governments that declare them. Yet when it comes to serving soldiers, there is an extraordinary taboo against criticism. This is peculiar because the guns and bombs that kill in an unjust war are not fired by politicians, but by soldiers. Why should they escape responsibility or criticism for their actions?

In one sense, this reluctance is entirely understandable. Soldiers undertake great hardships and make extraordinary sacrifices in our names and for our benefit. In the overwhelming majority of cases, they serve with honour, courage and in good faith.

Soldier’s position

It is natural that we feel deep emotions of respect and gratitude for these men and women, especially for those who are injured or killed.

And yet if the war itself is unjust – as many people believe of the invasion of Iraq, and a smaller number believe of Afghanistan – then those soldiers have participated in the killing of people for no good reason. Ordinarily we would take such action as an occasion for critical reflection, not veneration.

Of course even if these wars are not just, ordinary soldiers may have a good excuse for participating. A soldier’s access to information is limited, and arguably he should be entitled to rely on the judgement of his government and its legal advisers.

Wootton Bassett has become a focal point for grief over soldiers

Besides, soldiers exist within a powerful chain of command and don’t get a choice as to which wars they fight. In a sense they act under duress. Yet these considerations go only so far.

Individual freedom of action is greater in a professional army like the British Army than in a conscript army, and the internet has brought considerable access to information, commentary and debate, even in the field.

For many British people, one of the tragedies of the Blair government’s action prior to the Iraq war is that it has eroded our sense that the government can be trusted to make decisions over war soundly and on proper grounds.

It is true that soldiers break no law by participating in an illegal campaign. International law states that as long as soldiers follow the rules on the conduct of war, they do not act unlawfully by participating in an illegal war.

But just because soldiers have legal impunity does not mean they should be exempt from moral evaluation. Ideally we should have the opportunity for serious and sensitive reflection, both in public and private, on what it means morally for a soldier to fight in an unjust war.

Such reflection might cause us to reconsider provisions for selective conscientious objection in the forces, and assist servicemen in coming to terms with the burden of killing in wars of ambiguous legitimacy.

Does this mean that Islam4UK were justified in their proposed march through Wootton Bassett? Not at all.

Many will judge their motives as disreputable, and their proposed actions designed to cause maximum offence, not least to the bereaved families of deceased servicemen.

A group that praised the 11 September attacks and mocks the basic liberties of our democracy, can hardly claim to be engaging in an honest and constructive debate on the moral responsibility of serving soldiers.

But the manifest defects of the messenger, shouldn’t blind us to the possibility of a kernel of truth in the message.

David Rodin is a senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict