Armed Forces Bill

That is a valid point. The lack of definition of an enemy has enticed the Government to include in clause 8(3) as a relevant service"““military occupation of a foreign country or territory.””" Without definition of an enemy, service during an occupation of another country is sufficient to qualify as desertion if one withdraws from that service and refuses to participate in that action. I believe that legislation of that sort will fail. No increase in the severity of punishment will prevent servicemen and women from speaking out. Many have paid their respects—as I have, too—to serving personnel for the bravery that they show and their professionalism in carrying out their duties, but I also want to salute those who have had the courage and bravery to exercise their moral judgment, and those who have followed their conscience and said no to fighting. They have not supported the occupation and they have refused to serve. I pay tribute to Ben Griffin from the SAS, who said to us last week that he was not willing to support, in his professional life, the invasion of Iraq and the immoral and illegal war in Iraq. I also pay tribute to Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, a person of conscience who is in a military prison as a result of refusing to serve in Iraq. Their views should be respected. They, and others who come forward in future, should not be threatened with life imprisonment. History will be their judge, as was the case with the first world war. The people who opposed that barbarism were, in fact, sane and courageous. History will judge individuals who stood up and refused to fight in Iraq, or to support the occupation, to be heroes.