Maybe if the mandatory service were installing fiber to rural areas the way we managed to get copper out there or dealing with infrastructure (especially water and schools) in Indigenous and remote communities. Maybe health care or emergency response.
But guns and bombs? No thanks.
Also, I’m old enough to be exempt by any rational measure. If it came to a vote, my vote shouldn’t be counted.
I’m glad I’m starting to get to be old enough to be exempt for any mandatory national service but damn if that wouldn’t make this country worse overall.
I agree. I’m also not a huge fan of rebranding “military conscription” as “national service”. There have been people talking about “national service” in ways that specifically excluded military service. This feels like yet another case of the right stealing a term from the left and redefining it to suit themselves. It’s something they have been doing with national and religious symbols and slogans forever as a way to hide their true intentions.
One thing I find particularly concerning is that military conscription has generally been reserved for invasion or active defense. What are they not telling us?
Decent article but senseless headline. Nobody ever positioned mandatory service as a method to make Canadians love their country…
Nobody is seriously talking about mandatory service in Canada are they? The draft and conscription have been political suicide in Canada for basically the country’s entire history as an independent nation. To my knowledge, the only countries where national service has any political traction are countries with a threatening neighbour right on their doorstep like Korea and Israel
The incumbent (Tory) party in the UK has included national service in their campaign leading up to next month’s federal [edit: national] election.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c988jdxl02vo
The proposed new scheme would not be conscription, where people are legally required to join the armed forces for a period. But it would compel people by law to complete a community programme over a 12-month period, or enrol in a year-long military training scheme, when they turn 18.
Yeah the article mentions that. And it mentions some conservative newspapers here are supporting the UK tories. But is anybody seriously talking about it for here?
Sorry to be that guy but it’s just too jarring to me
We don’t have federal elections it’s a general election.
Apologies, corrected to national. More importantly, how do you feel about the incumbent party in your country planning to introduce soft conscription?
Switzerland does have a mandatory service for all men, and doesn’t have belligerent neighbours… But the Swiss army is still very much stuck in the cold war mindset of being afraid of an invasion. Last time there was a vote, the people refused to abolish the militia system.
Tbh I don’t think military service is a problem as long as it’s only used for defence and is properly setup, instead of have nutjobs running the small professional army and wanting war because they trained their whole life for it…
I thought it was the UK Conservative party suggesting that, it’s happening at the same time in Canada too?
According to the article the conservative party in Canada has also suggested it, in order to fix the “hate” young Canadians are starting to have for Canada.
Young Canadians don’t hate Canada; they hate the boneheaded ideas thought up in Parliament and they hate that they’ve been priced out of owning a part of Canada.
If you don’t have a voice or land, and see no hope that you ever will, why would you be happy with how things are?
How about we just tax the hell out of the rich people and billionaires in the country and use their money to pay for all our problems?
Then we can talk about national service after if that doesn’t work
