The only thing I will say is that the person in the article is wrong in some parts. Emergency service cannot be refused. There are significant loopholes one has to jump through in order to become a conscientious objector. Also, the bill makes provisions for if there is no other service available.
I'm not challenging the good or bad of the bill, only pointing out that the author is being more alarmist than might be necessary.
Thank you. Though I think, besides "alarmist," it sounds like "inaccurate" also applies, from the reading/writeup you did.
As I said when posting it, not doing commentary/research/anything due to being tired, but linking others so they could if they wanted (and, honestly, me to make sure I did later). I don't see anything objectionable about the actual intent/letter of the law, from what you found about it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
The only thing I will say is that the person in the article is wrong in some parts. Emergency service cannot be refused. There are significant loopholes one has to jump through in order to become a conscientious objector. Also, the bill makes provisions for if there is no other service available.
I'm not challenging the good or bad of the bill, only pointing out that the author is being more alarmist than might be necessary.
no subject
As I said when posting it, not doing commentary/research/anything due to being tired, but linking others so they could if they wanted (and, honestly, me to make sure I did later). I don't see anything objectionable about the actual intent/letter of the law, from what you found about it.