The Order of Bards Ovates and Druids

DRUID CHIEFS AND PACIFIST VIEWS

Philip Carr-Gomm writes: “I do not know exactly what kind of pacifism Nuinn espoused � whether it was Absolute or Conditional, whether it was Pragmatic or Specific � all I know is that he lived through two World Wars, as a child in the first and as a teacher in the second, and that he bequeathed £2,000 in his 1941 Will to the Pacifist organisation The Peace Pledge Union, which still exists. This would be a considerable amount in today’s terms � probably more than £20,000. He asked that it be ‘applied towards the equipment or maintenance of Pacifist hostels or settlements.’ His father was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Royal Army Medical Corps, and I would imagine his espousal of pacifist ideas ran very much counter to his father’s beliefs. Many of his contemporaries, who shared similar interests in Celtic mythology, were pacifists, including T.H.White, author of the Arthurian ‘The Once & Future King’, Michael Tippett, the composer, and James Kirkup, the poet and friend of Nuinn. "

“For myself, I cannot say that I espouse Total or Absolute Pacifism (opposition to all killing and violence of any kind), because I believe that if, for example, I found my family (or anyone) being attacked by a madman with a gun, I would hope I could disable him before he did any harm. Likewise with the fight against Nazism, I believe if I had been alive at the time of that awful struggle, I would have supported the war effort, though I would have tried to be involved in a non-violent way such as analysing intelligence rather than fighting . But I do believe that violence and aggression, not used in cases of necessary self-defence or protection of others, is morally wrong, and pragmatically it rarely solves problems, and instead usually exacerbates them. We have all seen how situations in Northern Ireland and Palestine have become intractable due to each side’s use of violence, often � if not always � justified as a response to a previous act of violence. Most of us wonder if the situation in both places will ever change with this attitude."

“So I would say I am a Conditional Pacifist � believing pacifism the appropriate stance in most situations. But I dislike labels and would prefer to simply say that I believe in non-violence and in actively contributing to the achievement of peace and social justice in the world."

“In the aftermath of the tragedy on September 11th 2001 in New York City, I think many of us questioned our beliefs about peace and non-violence � I certainly did. In a posting to the Order’s internet forum, NOBOD, I said “In principle I believe in non-violence and in peaceful solutions to conflict. I also believe that arms dealing and warfare are essentially immoral because they cause suffering. I also believe that pragmatically war often doesn't solve problems but makes them worse. However there are situations where human nature is such that we have to use force to protect ourselves - either after an attack or to pre-empt further violence.

“So, for instance, I believe that the Allies were right to fight Hitler and the evils of Nazism, but wrong to fire-bomb German cities, killing thousands of innocents, just before the end of the war, when even Churchill advised Bomber Command not to. I also think that NATO did the right thing in putting a stop to Milosovic and his cronies attempts at ethnic cleansing. And I also think it right to pursue terrorists vigorously and to put an end to the Taliban regime which has caused so much suffering.

“I feel that the kind of Conditional Pacifism that I have described, does justice to the complexity of the problem - it says in effect 'In principle I believe in love and kindness, and I see that much conflict in the world is not resolved through more aggression but through attempts at mediation and the active promotion of peace. However I recognise that force, even aggressive force, is sometimes required to stop violent people or acts."

“My experience in psychotherapy with adults, play therapy with children, and in running a Montessori school, has shown me that under certain circumstances it is regrettably necessary to use physical force to prevent someone’s violence causing harm. To attempt a mild approach and avoid force in those specific circumstances can be irresponsible and dangerous. Nevertheless � even in these extreme situations, I believe it is still possible to act from a place of compassion even whilst using force. This � presumably � is the position of those Martial Arts based on spiritual principles."

“Some people confuse pacifism with being ‘passive’ and being weak. But I do not see pacifism as a stand of weakness at all. Instead I see it as one of great strength and moral courage. It involves taking the energy of being a ‘Warrior’ and using that quality of Being, not to destroy or wound, but to protect, defend and ‘fight’ if necessary, in a non-violent way, against abuse of any kind � whether of other humans, animals or the environment. It does not mean, for me, ‘giving in’, ‘allowing abuse’, ‘accepting bullying’ or ‘turning the other cheek’. Instead it means standing up to abuse and aggression of every kind and refusing to accept it.”

Philip/|\