Russian cannon fodder

Martin Jones, a professor of international human rights law at the University of York has written in The Conversation suggesting that, politically and legally, the conscripts must be given protection:

"While border states are worried about the mass influx of young Russian men, there are a range of practical reasons for other countries to provide Russians fleeing conscription with protection. Most obviously, providing sanctuary abroad undermines Russia's ability to raise an army to continue its fight in Ukraine. It also further strengthens the Russian expatriate community and its opposition to the invasion." And it surely is more logical for the West to allow entry to these men rather than having to supply more high-tech weapons to kill them in Ukraine.

According to Professor Jones, the war ticks a number of boxes required for legal protection of conscripts which include catering to conscientious objection, avoiding internationally condemned acts, and conscription that is "extra-legal, discriminatory or results in inhuman treatment."

With rare bravery, he takes up the point about discrimination: "When it comes to conscription, we have also yet to fully resolve the blatant sexism embedded in the Russian (and more widespread) practice of conscripting only men."

Last March I wrote about Ukraine's decision to force men to stay and fight while women and children were hastily shipped off, out of harm's way. Suddenly, after decades of feminist demands for women to be allowed to take their rightful place alongside men in the services, we reverted to old-fashioned chivalry which demands only men are disposable. I called out the hypocrisy of blinkered media coverage celebrating the courage of the very few women who chose to remain and fight, whilst ignoring fit, healthy, single women fleeing across the borders.

At that time there were reportedly 32,000 women in the Ukrainian miliary, a very small percentage of the 17 million women in the relevant age group. Similarly, Russian women only make up 4.26 per cent of total active-duty forces and they are not permitted in frontline combat roles. With so few women in active service, it is hardly surprising these traditional countries choose to conscript solely men.

It's worth remembering that the Russian conscription is simply the latest example of disposable, innocent young men being drafted into war, a key factor that has enabled military aggression throughout history, allowing ruthless political leaders to impose atrocities on the world.

Finally, in some more egalitarian countries, tough questions are now being asked. Norway introduced gender-neutral conscription in 2013 but similar countries lag behind. British journalist Anna Hollingsworth, who grew up in Finland, bought into a debate about the gendered conscription practices in that country, slamming them as "an outdated, sexist, and human rights-violating structure."

She wrote: "From a gender equality perspective, men-only conscription shouts out blatant sexism… There is absolutely no reason why only men should be drafted, and politicians consistently fail to give one. In everyday conversations, though, reasons are found in everything from women serving their duty to their country by giving birth, and boys growing into men in the army – it is not uncommon to regard military service as a male rite of passage. It is as if the topic of conscription causes all conversation to undergo a bizarre time warp where all the gender equality established elsewhere in society evaporates."

I've discussed before the battle taking place in America, originally led by the late Marc Angelucci, the brave men's rights lawyer who was murdered in July 2020. I interviewed Marc the previous year, and he talked about his important work which included running cases for the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) challenging the male draft.

They'd had some big wins, with the Southern District court determining that the male-only draft was unconstitutional, but that was overturned at appeal. After Marc's death, the American Civil Liberties Union came on board, representing the NCFM. The Supreme Court agreed the male draft law may be unconstitutional and outdated but kicked the can down the road and said they wouldn't decide the issue, leaving it up to Congress to change the law. Congress, of course, did nothing, and the discriminatory law remains which requires men to register for the draft in order to be allowed to vote, get a driver's license, obtain federal or state loans, grants or scholarships, or retain citizenship.

Slow progress indeed for the men of America. But it sure beats being vaporised in a Jack-in-the-box.