Court acquits conscientious objector from charges: what's next?

On the 23rd of February 2018, the Helsinki Court of Appeals made a land mark decision. The court acquitted a total objector, meaning a person who refuses both military and the alternative civil service, from charges on "refusal of civil service", on which he had previously been sentenced to 173 days in prison. This is the first time this has happened, so the question is, what does this decision mean for the future?

First some background information. In my first post on this matter, I mentioned that Jehovah's Witnesses have been exempt from conscription since 1987. This is because back in the day, Witnesses were practically the only group of total objectors in the country. Just like today, the system received a lot of criticism on human rights violations, not the least of which was directed towards the practice of imprisoning  total objectors. In an effort to end the criticism, the Finnish government at the time passed a law which allows Jehovah's Witnesses to avoid service by proving they are active within their congregation. What this means in practice, is that by having the church leaders sing a document proving that they're an active member, they can postpone the start of their service by three years at a time. Since according to Finnish law, you have to complete your service before the age of 30, Witnesses can push the start of their service beyond that point, after which they are exempt from service during times of peace. The law making this possible is very strict, making it impossible for anybody outside the group to get an exemption using this method, even if they believed the same way Witnesses believe. While the law was meant to at least limit international criticism, the plan backfired, as the number of non-Witness total objectors increased, just creating a new problem. And that's the point of this post.

Especially during the 2000's, the exemption given to Witnesses has received criticism. I've already mentioned that the UN Human Rights Committee has demanded the exemption to be expanded to include other conscientious objectors. Apart from this, the exemption has also received criticism inside of Finland, as the Parliament's constitutional committee has declared the practice as discriminatory and thus, unconstitutional and demanded changes to be made. Changes have also been demanded by a special council formed by the Ministry of Defense, formed to investigate the necessity of the exemption and the non-discrimination ombudsman. Despite all this, no change has happened. But now, things might actually change.

I've also mentioned this case briefly in the post linked above. In the Spring of 2017, news broke that the non-discrimination ombudsman will defend a total objector in court. The man in question had already been sentenced to jail the previous year and was now appealing his case, arguing that the exemption given to Jehovah's Witnesses was discriminatory in nature and since the Finnish constitution bans discrimination, he should be given an exemption as well. Using this argument is not uncommon among total objectors, however, in past cases the courts have usually rejected the argument. In fact, just two weeks ago, the Eastern Uusimaa District Court sentenced three total objectors to jail terms, all of whom used the discrimination argument in their defense. In this case, the court didn't necessarily reject the argument, but handed the sentence anyway, because of the current legal praxis. Considering the way the legal system has treated the discrimination argument in the past, you can probably guess why the Finnish conscientious objector movement was hopeful about this case. A government official defending one of us in court... and it seems we were right to be hopeful about this case.

So, on the 23rd of February 2018,  the Helsinki Court of Appeals acquitted a total objector from charges, meaning this is the first time a non-Witness total objector has been exempt from service on the grounds of their convictions. So, what's happening next? The prosecutor now has 60 days to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, which the prosecutor has promised to do. In Finland the Supreme Court mostly deals with high profile cases, where it can set precedence. And since this is the first time something like this has happened, the court will most likely take this case. After the prosecutor has filed the appeal, the Supreme Court will take a few months to decide whether or not they will take the case, which, as I said, most likely will happen. After that, it will take on average a year for the court to give their verdict, meaning in total, it might take up to 18 months for this case to completely resolve. Until then, it's fairly uncertain what will happen. Because of the appeal, the verdict is not yet lawful, meaning theoretically other courts could simply ignore this particular case and keep handing out sentences. So, until the Supreme Court makes its decision on this case or if the prosecutor decides not to appeal, it really depends on the authorities. Will the Civil Service Center or the military keep reporting people refusing service to the police? Will the police investigate the cases or press charges? Will the courts take future cases until this is resolved? At the moment we don't really know, but I will keep you posted on future developments.

What will happen after the Supreme Court gives their verdict? If the court decides to change the verdict given by the Court of Appeals, nothing will probably happen. On the other hand, if the court decides to uphold the verdict, it will end the special treatment given to Jehovah's Witnesses. I think there arethree possibilities for this:

1. The exemption given to Witnesses will be expanded to include other conscientious objectors. Conscription practically abolished.
2. The exemption will be taken away, Witnesses have to face the same consequences for refusal as other total objectors.
3. No changes into legislation. Officially everything remains the same, in practice conscription abolished.

Number one would be the best possible outcome. By expanding the exemption given to Witnesses, the imprisonment on total objectors would end, meaning international criticism towards the system would end. The main question here is, how the exemption would be handled. As I mentioned previously, the current practice is tied with the membership of the Jehovah's Witness denomination, meaning, it has to be changed in order to accommodate for other groups. So, how should this be done? For example, I've mentioned before that I'm an atheist and not affiliated with any religious group. Because of people like me, the exemption could not be tied into the membership of certain religious groups. I think you get the point already. This would mean a lot of work for legislators to handle.

While this might be the ideal solution, I'm not too hopeful about this. Problem is that a lot of Finns seem to see conscription as an intrinsic value. After the verdict was given, it has been all over the news. In an interview Perttu Wasenius, an official at the ministry of defense said that as long as Finland has conscription, expanding the exemption to include all conscientious objectors would be impossible. This kinda shows the fact how there is very little interest to actually change the system. Despite all the problems and all the criticism the system has received over the years, conscription simply has to be kept in force. In this case, the situation could be handled with a form of selective service, like our neighbors in Sweden and Norway have. There are ways to do this, while still officially keep conscription, but apparently for some, the current system simply can't be replaced, no matter what.

This is why I ultimately see number two as a more likely solution to the situation. The outcome that this would have is not as clear as you might think. I've read that the Jehovah's Witnesses Governing Body would nowadays accept their members to take part in civil service. On the other hand, the Finnish branch is strongly opposed to the idea, good example being last Summer, when Veikko Leinonen, the spokesperson for Finnish Jehovah's Witnesses said in an interview that if their exemption is taken away, the situation would go back to the time before the exemption was given, meaning the groups members would start going to jail. This could theoretically lead to the number of total objectors to triple compared to the current level, which would simply bring more international criticism towards the system, which might lead to actual change in the long run. Even though there have been some calls to take the exemption away, ultimately our politicians seem to be a bit hesitant to do anything about this.

That's the main reason I think possibility number three is one possible outcome. Problems with the system have already been pointed out for years with no major changes, so why couldn't that continue? In this case, legislation regarding conscription would remain the same,, but because of the decision made by the Supreme Court, total objectors could be convicted. In every practical sense this would mean the abolishing of conscription. Ultimately, I don't see this as very likely. Based on what I've read on this matter since the decision, calls to make some legislative changes are simply too strong to ignore.

In the end, we have to wait what the Supreme Court will say. Follow me on Twitter to keep updated on this case.