Another post about conscription
You know, when I started this blog, I wasn't planning on conscription being this big of a topic. But, since it seems to be a gift that keeps on giving, I see no reason to stop talking about this. Especially after the recent court case where a conscientious objector had charges dropped against them, which I covered in my previous post, the discussion has reached new heights. While I'm happy that this seems to have fueled the discussion to another level, this has led to some questionable actions by the government.
As I said, I've already covered this case in more detail in the post linked above, so I'm not going into detail here. In summary, while Finland still retains conscription, Jehovah's Witnesses have been exempt from service since 1987. This has caused some controversy and over the years, multiple total objectors, meaning people who refuse both military and the alternative service, have argued that the practice is discriminatory towards other convictions and therefore, unconstitutional. The same problem has been pointed out by multiple government bodies and officials, including the parliaments constitutional committee, so it seems pretty clear: the practice in fact is discriminatory. In the past, while courts have generally accepted the arguments, they have still sentenced total objectors to jail, on the grounds that they can't do anything else. I mean, the law is pretty clear on that. Anybody who refuses to complete their service is sentenced to six moths in jail or monitored house arrest, the only ones exempt are Jehovah's Witnesses. But recently, there was a court case, which could change this all. A total objector who had appealed his case got help from the non-discrimination ombudsman over the supposedly discriminatory nature of the practice. In this case, the Helsinki Court of Appeals made a decision to release the man. This case could mean a major change in the future, but it's not really clear what will happen.
In my previous post I pointed out that the verdict is not yet lawful. Essentially this means that the case has no binding effect to lower courts, however, it does act as directory precedence for them. So basically, it's still unclear how this case will affect near future. Based on what I've read, it can be argued that at least for now, total objectors can't be sentenced to jail. Even though the case isn't yet legally binding, meaning lower courts could theoretically still keep sentencing total objectors, however, the appeal made by total objectors are handled by the Helsinki Court of Appeals, which, if you remember, was the court to release the total objector in question. Also, the Appeals Court actually postponed handling other appeals made by total objectors before giving verdict on this one. Essentially, even if lower courts were to sentence total objectors, appealing the case would simply cause them to be released by the Appeals Court, or have their case be postponed until the eventual verdict by the Supreme Court, as the prosecutor has already announced their plans to appeal this case. If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, which most likely will happen, it can take up to 18 months for them to actually announce their verdict. Now, while we still have to wait for the actual outcome for a while, this has already led to actions by our minister of defense, which, while not surprising, are a bit disappointing considering all the criticism the Finnish system has received.
Finland's minister of defense is a guy named Jussi Niinistö. I've mentioned him in previous post because of the fact that he blocked me on Twitter for questioning his stance on conscription. Couple of days after the announcement of this decision, minister Niinistö told that he had instructed the ministry of defense to investigate the possibility of removing the special exemption from Jehovah's Witnesses. This gathered support from other members of the Blue Reform, of which Niinistö is a member of. This included the party's leader Sampo Terho. Terho wrote about this on his blog, supporting the idea of forcing Witnesses into service and suggested that if this was to happen, most Witnesses would choose civil service. Niinistö also gave similar statements in a recent talk show visit, where the topic of conscription was discussed. Problem is, when you consider everything that has been said about this, it really doesn't make sense.
For one, there is the international criticism towards the system. The UN Human Rights Committee has demanded the exemption given to Witnesses to be expanded to every group of conscientious objectors. Apart from this Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Council (yes, different organization), have criticized the practice of imprisoning total objectors, plus there are decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights on other countries, which seemingly also condemn the practice. Now, I've already mentioned this before (more details here), so this doesn't necessarily explain why forcing Witnesses to service is a bad idea. The thing is, making this decision would ultimately cause more problems it solves.
As I said, the UN Human Rights Committee has demanded the exemption to be expanded. However, in the talk show visit I mentioned briefly, minister Niinitö tried to paint a different picture about that. According to him, the reason for the criticism was the preferential treatment given to Witnesses, which could be solved by removing the exemption. In reality, the source of criticism is Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees freedom of conscience. So, instead of criticizing Finland about discrimination of non-Jehovah's Witness CO's, the criticism is about Finland not doing enough to recognize freedom of conscience for conscientious objectors. So basically, if the exemption is taken away, the criticism will simply shift towards the practice of imprisoning total objectors in general, like the Human Rights Council has done. So basically, it would simply replace the current problem with another. And that wouldn't be the only problem.
Removing the exemption would simply increase the number of total objectors dramatically. How Dramatically you might ask? Well, in 2017, 33 total objectors were sentenced. On the other hand, around 100 Jehovah's Witnesses are exempt every year. The thing is, Finnish Jehovah's Witnesses are strongly against the idea of completing any form of service. Good example of this is a statement given by Veikko Leinonen, the official spokesperson for the groups Finnish branch. When this whole court case started in late Spring of 2017, he said that taking away the exemption would lead to them going to jail, just like before the exemption was given. The reason is that according to them, Finnish alternative service is too closely linked with national defense. That raises the question, why do both Jussi Niinistö and Sampo Terho think that removing the exemption would lead to most of them to choose civil service? Well, apparently in 1996, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses gave permission for it's members to choose alternative forms of service to military service, instead of refusing from all forms of service. The key thing here is "gave permission". Members CAN choose alternative civil service, however, since in Finland the national leadership is against the idea, it's more likely that most member would choose jail. Since the Governing Body permits members from choosing alternative service, Finnish members who choose that probably wouldn't be punished for it, but I think it's bit of a stretch to assume that most would choose service.
So basically, removing the exemption given to Witnesses would simply lead to a dramatic increase in the numbers of total objectors, which in turn would lead to an increase in criticism towards the system. So, is it really worth it? Especially considering all the problems I've already pointed out in previous posts on this matter, it really doesn't make sense. Thankfully, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides, the people I've mentioned will not be in power anymore. Why is that? Finland is scheduled to hold next parliamentary elections next Spring, and the Blue Reform, the party both of these guys are representing is not doing too well in the polls. There's actually a chance that the whole party will drop out of parliament. Im one of my earliest posts I kinda covered the reason why this is. But again, we really have to wait for the Supreme Court before the actual results are clear. Until then, I will keep you posted on new developments.
Follow me on Twitter.
My other posts on conscription.
Part one: General information
Part two: Discussion and some proposed alternatives
Part three: Recruitment
Part four: Reserve objectors
Conscription and the recent election
Butthurt responses to my comments
As I said, I've already covered this case in more detail in the post linked above, so I'm not going into detail here. In summary, while Finland still retains conscription, Jehovah's Witnesses have been exempt from service since 1987. This has caused some controversy and over the years, multiple total objectors, meaning people who refuse both military and the alternative service, have argued that the practice is discriminatory towards other convictions and therefore, unconstitutional. The same problem has been pointed out by multiple government bodies and officials, including the parliaments constitutional committee, so it seems pretty clear: the practice in fact is discriminatory. In the past, while courts have generally accepted the arguments, they have still sentenced total objectors to jail, on the grounds that they can't do anything else. I mean, the law is pretty clear on that. Anybody who refuses to complete their service is sentenced to six moths in jail or monitored house arrest, the only ones exempt are Jehovah's Witnesses. But recently, there was a court case, which could change this all. A total objector who had appealed his case got help from the non-discrimination ombudsman over the supposedly discriminatory nature of the practice. In this case, the Helsinki Court of Appeals made a decision to release the man. This case could mean a major change in the future, but it's not really clear what will happen.
In my previous post I pointed out that the verdict is not yet lawful. Essentially this means that the case has no binding effect to lower courts, however, it does act as directory precedence for them. So basically, it's still unclear how this case will affect near future. Based on what I've read, it can be argued that at least for now, total objectors can't be sentenced to jail. Even though the case isn't yet legally binding, meaning lower courts could theoretically still keep sentencing total objectors, however, the appeal made by total objectors are handled by the Helsinki Court of Appeals, which, if you remember, was the court to release the total objector in question. Also, the Appeals Court actually postponed handling other appeals made by total objectors before giving verdict on this one. Essentially, even if lower courts were to sentence total objectors, appealing the case would simply cause them to be released by the Appeals Court, or have their case be postponed until the eventual verdict by the Supreme Court, as the prosecutor has already announced their plans to appeal this case. If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, which most likely will happen, it can take up to 18 months for them to actually announce their verdict. Now, while we still have to wait for the actual outcome for a while, this has already led to actions by our minister of defense, which, while not surprising, are a bit disappointing considering all the criticism the Finnish system has received.
Finland's minister of defense is a guy named Jussi Niinistö. I've mentioned him in previous post because of the fact that he blocked me on Twitter for questioning his stance on conscription. Couple of days after the announcement of this decision, minister Niinistö told that he had instructed the ministry of defense to investigate the possibility of removing the special exemption from Jehovah's Witnesses. This gathered support from other members of the Blue Reform, of which Niinistö is a member of. This included the party's leader Sampo Terho. Terho wrote about this on his blog, supporting the idea of forcing Witnesses into service and suggested that if this was to happen, most Witnesses would choose civil service. Niinistö also gave similar statements in a recent talk show visit, where the topic of conscription was discussed. Problem is, when you consider everything that has been said about this, it really doesn't make sense.
For one, there is the international criticism towards the system. The UN Human Rights Committee has demanded the exemption given to Witnesses to be expanded to every group of conscientious objectors. Apart from this Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Council (yes, different organization), have criticized the practice of imprisoning total objectors, plus there are decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights on other countries, which seemingly also condemn the practice. Now, I've already mentioned this before (more details here), so this doesn't necessarily explain why forcing Witnesses to service is a bad idea. The thing is, making this decision would ultimately cause more problems it solves.
As I said, the UN Human Rights Committee has demanded the exemption to be expanded. However, in the talk show visit I mentioned briefly, minister Niinitö tried to paint a different picture about that. According to him, the reason for the criticism was the preferential treatment given to Witnesses, which could be solved by removing the exemption. In reality, the source of criticism is Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees freedom of conscience. So, instead of criticizing Finland about discrimination of non-Jehovah's Witness CO's, the criticism is about Finland not doing enough to recognize freedom of conscience for conscientious objectors. So basically, if the exemption is taken away, the criticism will simply shift towards the practice of imprisoning total objectors in general, like the Human Rights Council has done. So basically, it would simply replace the current problem with another. And that wouldn't be the only problem.
Removing the exemption would simply increase the number of total objectors dramatically. How Dramatically you might ask? Well, in 2017, 33 total objectors were sentenced. On the other hand, around 100 Jehovah's Witnesses are exempt every year. The thing is, Finnish Jehovah's Witnesses are strongly against the idea of completing any form of service. Good example of this is a statement given by Veikko Leinonen, the official spokesperson for the groups Finnish branch. When this whole court case started in late Spring of 2017, he said that taking away the exemption would lead to them going to jail, just like before the exemption was given. The reason is that according to them, Finnish alternative service is too closely linked with national defense. That raises the question, why do both Jussi Niinistö and Sampo Terho think that removing the exemption would lead to most of them to choose civil service? Well, apparently in 1996, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses gave permission for it's members to choose alternative forms of service to military service, instead of refusing from all forms of service. The key thing here is "gave permission". Members CAN choose alternative civil service, however, since in Finland the national leadership is against the idea, it's more likely that most member would choose jail. Since the Governing Body permits members from choosing alternative service, Finnish members who choose that probably wouldn't be punished for it, but I think it's bit of a stretch to assume that most would choose service.
So basically, removing the exemption given to Witnesses would simply lead to a dramatic increase in the numbers of total objectors, which in turn would lead to an increase in criticism towards the system. So, is it really worth it? Especially considering all the problems I've already pointed out in previous posts on this matter, it really doesn't make sense. Thankfully, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides, the people I've mentioned will not be in power anymore. Why is that? Finland is scheduled to hold next parliamentary elections next Spring, and the Blue Reform, the party both of these guys are representing is not doing too well in the polls. There's actually a chance that the whole party will drop out of parliament. Im one of my earliest posts I kinda covered the reason why this is. But again, we really have to wait for the Supreme Court before the actual results are clear. Until then, I will keep you posted on new developments.
Follow me on Twitter.
My other posts on conscription.
Part one: General information
Part two: Discussion and some proposed alternatives
Part three: Recruitment
Part four: Reserve objectors
Conscription and the recent election
Butthurt responses to my comments
Kommentit
Lähetä kommentti