Finnish government once again shits on human rights
I wasn't planning on staying silent for this long, but unfortunately my real world commitments prevented me from writing anything. However, recent developments, though not surprising, have left me disappointed and pissed off. In other words, it's time to talk about conscription yet again.
Now, I've already explained the system in previous posts, but in a nutshell to those not familiar: Finland is one of the few western countries to retain conscription. This means that every able bodied man is required to serve in the military or complete alternative civil service, while women on the other hand are allowed to volunteer. Refusing to serve, people doing so referred to as "total objectors", leads to a six month jail sentence or house arrest depending on your specific circumstances. The only exception to this are Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) who have been exempt from service since mid 80's, because of reasons I've talked about in the post linked above. As you might guess, this has caused some backlash and over the years multiple total objectors have, unsuccessfully, claimed discrimination when being tried for their decision. This changed earlier this year, when a total objector, represented in court by the non-discrimination ombudsman was able to successfully appeal his case. The prosecutor has announced plans to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, meaning the verdict is not yet lawful. Still, ever since the discussion has gone into overdrive: in mid June, Eastern Uusimaa District Court released a total objector, citing the case I mentioned earlier, while other cases involving total objectors have been put on hold. Also, soon after the courts decision, the Ministry of Defense announced they would form a special working group tasked with finding a solution on the role of JW's in national defense.
Now, seeing that the court case was specifically about discrimination, I think it's important to address the differences of viewing this issue in Finland and on the international stage, even though I've already done it multiple times in the past. While in Finland this has mostly been seen as a matter of equality and non.discrimination, international human rights bodies specifically consider this a matter of freedom of conscience. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee has multiple times told Finland to expand the exemption given to JW's to include other conscientious objectors (CO's). While the Committee has in the past used discrimination as an argument for doing so, in it's most recent review on Finland it specifically referred to Article 18 of the ICCPR, which guarantees freedom of conscience. In other words, the problem is the practice of imprisoning CO's and not the fact that one group is given preferential treatment over others. This was made even more clear by the UN Human Rights Council, which in it's latest review told Finland to stop imprisoning CO's and to release every CO currently serving time. Amnesty International on the other hand has in the past adopted multiple Finnish total objectors as prisoners of conscience and campaigned for their release. I don't know if I can make it any more clear: discrimination is the least of problems with this system.
And now we get back to more recent developments. Like I mentioned in the second post I linked above, right after the court case an official from the Ministry of Defense gave a statement, where he claimed expanding the exemption given to JW's was out of question as it would practically abolish conscription. So when the working group tasked with solving the situation was actually formed and specifically instructed that their solution should not "pose a threat" to conscription, it was pretty clear what the outcome would be. Not only that the working group was formed entirely of Ministry of Defense employees and members of the general staff. So not only was the working group being directed towards certain conclusion, it was also staffed with people who had every interest to keep the current system going. So not surprisingly, when the working group announced their result in late June, they suggested the exemption given to JW's should be removed.
Considering this decision means going to the exact opposite direction that human rights bodies have told Finland to go, you might ask how this was explained? Easy. By lying. Like I said, in Finland this has mostly been seen as an issue of equality and that's the picture they want you to see. When it comes to criticism from the previously mentioned human rights bodies, they claimed discrimination was the worst problem they had pointed out and by forcing JW's into service, the problem can be fixed.
So, what happens next? Well, previously I thought we would have to wait until the Supreme Court gives its decision on the case before anything is done to change things, which could take long into next year. However, it turns out I was wrong. On the 20th of September 2018, the Finnish government officially proposed ending the special exemption given to JW's.
What does this mean for the future? Well, it only delays the inevitable. At some point the gross violation of human rights in the form of Finnish conscription will end. Short term, the number of total objectors will most likely rise. Even though today JW's are fine completing civil service, it's officially considered a matter of conscience of the individual witness. Based on comments given by local JW spokespeople, it seems the national leadership is pretty strongly against the idea, so it seems most JW will end up choosing total objection. In other words, the criticism won't be going anywhere. It might take couple more years, but in the end this is only a minor setback.
Follow me on Twtter.
Now, I've already explained the system in previous posts, but in a nutshell to those not familiar: Finland is one of the few western countries to retain conscription. This means that every able bodied man is required to serve in the military or complete alternative civil service, while women on the other hand are allowed to volunteer. Refusing to serve, people doing so referred to as "total objectors", leads to a six month jail sentence or house arrest depending on your specific circumstances. The only exception to this are Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) who have been exempt from service since mid 80's, because of reasons I've talked about in the post linked above. As you might guess, this has caused some backlash and over the years multiple total objectors have, unsuccessfully, claimed discrimination when being tried for their decision. This changed earlier this year, when a total objector, represented in court by the non-discrimination ombudsman was able to successfully appeal his case. The prosecutor has announced plans to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, meaning the verdict is not yet lawful. Still, ever since the discussion has gone into overdrive: in mid June, Eastern Uusimaa District Court released a total objector, citing the case I mentioned earlier, while other cases involving total objectors have been put on hold. Also, soon after the courts decision, the Ministry of Defense announced they would form a special working group tasked with finding a solution on the role of JW's in national defense.
Now, seeing that the court case was specifically about discrimination, I think it's important to address the differences of viewing this issue in Finland and on the international stage, even though I've already done it multiple times in the past. While in Finland this has mostly been seen as a matter of equality and non.discrimination, international human rights bodies specifically consider this a matter of freedom of conscience. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee has multiple times told Finland to expand the exemption given to JW's to include other conscientious objectors (CO's). While the Committee has in the past used discrimination as an argument for doing so, in it's most recent review on Finland it specifically referred to Article 18 of the ICCPR, which guarantees freedom of conscience. In other words, the problem is the practice of imprisoning CO's and not the fact that one group is given preferential treatment over others. This was made even more clear by the UN Human Rights Council, which in it's latest review told Finland to stop imprisoning CO's and to release every CO currently serving time. Amnesty International on the other hand has in the past adopted multiple Finnish total objectors as prisoners of conscience and campaigned for their release. I don't know if I can make it any more clear: discrimination is the least of problems with this system.
And now we get back to more recent developments. Like I mentioned in the second post I linked above, right after the court case an official from the Ministry of Defense gave a statement, where he claimed expanding the exemption given to JW's was out of question as it would practically abolish conscription. So when the working group tasked with solving the situation was actually formed and specifically instructed that their solution should not "pose a threat" to conscription, it was pretty clear what the outcome would be. Not only that the working group was formed entirely of Ministry of Defense employees and members of the general staff. So not only was the working group being directed towards certain conclusion, it was also staffed with people who had every interest to keep the current system going. So not surprisingly, when the working group announced their result in late June, they suggested the exemption given to JW's should be removed.
Considering this decision means going to the exact opposite direction that human rights bodies have told Finland to go, you might ask how this was explained? Easy. By lying. Like I said, in Finland this has mostly been seen as an issue of equality and that's the picture they want you to see. When it comes to criticism from the previously mentioned human rights bodies, they claimed discrimination was the worst problem they had pointed out and by forcing JW's into service, the problem can be fixed.
So, what happens next? Well, previously I thought we would have to wait until the Supreme Court gives its decision on the case before anything is done to change things, which could take long into next year. However, it turns out I was wrong. On the 20th of September 2018, the Finnish government officially proposed ending the special exemption given to JW's.
What does this mean for the future? Well, it only delays the inevitable. At some point the gross violation of human rights in the form of Finnish conscription will end. Short term, the number of total objectors will most likely rise. Even though today JW's are fine completing civil service, it's officially considered a matter of conscience of the individual witness. Based on comments given by local JW spokespeople, it seems the national leadership is pretty strongly against the idea, so it seems most JW will end up choosing total objection. In other words, the criticism won't be going anywhere. It might take couple more years, but in the end this is only a minor setback.
Follow me on Twtter.
Kommentit
Lähetä kommentti