A-Infos (en) Italy, Umanita Nova #25-25 - Workers and Conscientious Objection. Railway Workers Against the War (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The military grip on civil society is becoming increasingly tight. As 
the collective Railway Workers Against the War (FCG), we have seen this 
with the ratification of the Leonardo-RFI agreement, but the war is also 
invading schools, ports, airports, and research institutions, which are 
increasingly under attack due to the Italian and global drift toward 
militarisation. Even industrial and logistics workplaces - theoretically 
safe from being used in the arms race and in war-fuelling transport - 
are being converted from civilian to military purposes.

The debate about opposing war-related production in civilian workplaces 
is growing ever more intense, in direct proportion to the ongoing 
escalation of rearmament. The question we ask ourselves as FCG, but also 
as the working class, is this: Can a worker refuse to be used for 
military activities? From a strictly legal perspective, the answer is no 
- they do not have the right to refuse. To this day, there is no 
legislation that protects those who consciously want to refuse to use 
their work and skills for military objectives. This legal vacuum leaves 
a grey area where an employee's refusal can lead to sanctions, 
harassment, isolation, and even possible dismissal. In short: 
unscrupulous repression against those who want to avoid the madness and 
inhumanity of a widening global conflict, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, 
and a war economy that is increasingly bleeding the welfare state dry 
and taking away prospects for contract renewals.

In Italy, until 2010, the only legal way to refuse involvement in the 
military was conscientious objection to compulsory military service, 
under Law No. 230 of 1998. This law was later repealed by Legislative 
Decree No. 66 of 15 March 2010, while, conversely, compulsory 
conscription was de facto only suspended (Law No. 226 of 23 August 
2004). This suspension is, moreover, tied to the decisions of the 
established state order, as stated in Article 78 of the Constitution: 
"Parliament declares the state of war and grants the Government the 
necessary powers." In plain terms: if the State decides to go to war, we 
are all called to be "ready to die - Italy has called."

The history of military service refusal needs to be briefly recounted, 
to give an overview that helps explain how such rights were won.

The Italian Constitution, which came into force on 1 January 1948, 
states in Article 52: "The defence of the Fatherland is a sacred duty of 
the citizen. Military service is compulsory within the limits and in the 
manner established by law." This obligation was met with resistance 
right from the start (notably in 1949 with the case of Pietro Pinna), 
and in the forty years between Article 52 and Law 230, several - though 
not many - cases of refusal occurred, motivated by political, ethical, 
or religious reasons. These refusals - even though there was no true 
mass antimilitarist movement - began to undermine the state apparatus. 
Anarchists, socialists, pacifists, but especially Jehovah's Witnesses 
over time created a broad critical movement against conscription and its 
related repression, which, through imprisonment, tried to break the 
resistance of antimilitarists who refused to submit (but aren't we 
supposed to be protected by the "most beautiful Constitution in the 
world"?). The repressive and flawed law of 1972 (Marcora 772/72) and the 
subsequent 1998 law were both a result of these bottom-up pressures and 
of state opportunism, which recognised the positive effects - in several 
respects - of establishing alternative civilian service. This service, 
then as now, represented a zero-cost resource to be used in many areas 
of production. The State could also avoid "inconveniences" such as 
hazing, which in some cases led to suicides, and above all, the protest 
movement of the "proletarians in uniform." Finally, it's worth noting 
that - despite Article 11 of the Constitution ("Italy repudiates war as 
an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as 
a means of settling international disputes ...") - when soldiers were 
needed for conflicts around the globe (official or not), special forces 
were often used.

Today's situation differs from the past struggles against conscription 
because conscientious objection in the workplace directly disrupts 
wealth production. However, what remains the same is the need for 
opposition and struggle to obtain the right to refuse.

Among the current debates, we highlight a meeting - organised by the 
grassroots unions CUB-COBAS and FIRENZE PER LA PALESTINA - held in 
Florence on 18 September, which focused on: "Antimilitarism in the 
workplace, legal insights on conscientious objection."

The meeting - well attended, with about 60-70 participants - included 
talks from a magistrate and a lawyer who, at least in theory, were 
supposed to provide legal clarification (and possible guidance) on how 
workers can refuse to perform military-related tasks. The speakers' 
contributions were long and at times meandering; they revolved around 
the simple use of the Constitution, which - according to the magistrate 
- already provides immediate tools for the working class, while the 
lawyer was more cautious, giving no guarantees: "Objection? It depends; 
it's not certain that a labour judge would accept a refusal." Resorting 
to strikes, which are increasingly restricted, doesn't guarantee timely 
use because current regulations delay the process of calling a strike. 
The lawyer instead pointed to Law 413/1993 (conscientious objection to 
animal experimentation) as a potential legal foothold, particularly 
Article 1, which states: "Citizens (...) oppose violence against all 
living beings." In short: nothing concrete yet, just hypotheses that 
still need to be tested.

Far more interesting and significant were the workers' own 
interventions, which highlighted on one side the objective difficulties 
in workplaces and on the other a strong sense of class consciousness: 
they demanded conscientious objection as a right to be wrested through 
struggle, not through useless bureaucratic loopholes. This was a debate 
we participated in as Railway Workers Against the War, precisely because 
of the difficulties we face with military trains. These difficulties 
were seen concretely in the case of a worker responsible for escorting 
exceptional transport who unexpectedly found himself in front of a tank 
being moved. The lack of prior information - as can also happen to 
freight train drivers - puts workers in serious difficulty, since, as we 
have seen, they have no tools except their own conscience and moral 
integrity.

The solidarity and synergy between work sectors, antimilitarist 
movements, grassroots unionism, and civil society will be decisive in 
stopping wars and genocides: this is the central message coming out of 
this living, growing debate, which continues to develop and circulate in 
our minds. This is the path we have chosen as Railway Workers Against 
the War.

Andrea - Railway Worker Against the War

https://umanitanova.org/lavorator3-e-obiezione-di-coscienza-ferrovier%c9%99-contro-la-guerra/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en