Conscription plans get worse

This is a short update on my previous post, which you need to read for context. While I wasn't planning on returning to this topic this quickly, recent development deserve a post on their own. So let's get started.

After a total objector avoided jail time last year by successfully appealing his case courts haven't been able to sentence total objectors. Since the decision made by the Helsinki Court of Appeals the Finnish Supreme Court decided not to handle the appeal made by the prosecutor effectively solidifying the status quo. The Finnish government on the other hand proposed legislation that would "solve" the situation by taking away the special exemption given to Jehovah's Witnesses. This legislation is currently going through committees within the Finnish parliament before a final vote which it's guaranteed to pass. On the 6th of February 2019, a day before I'm writing this, the parliaments constitutional committee gave their stance on the issue. 

The committees stance is not surprising. The special exemption given to JW's is discriminatory and therefor removing it is completely in line with the constitution which forbids discrimination. The committee also reviewed the issue freedom of conscience, which is also protected under the Finnish constitution, stating that national defense is a perfectly valid reason to limit someones freedom of conscience so that's not a problem according to them. Now, as I've pointed out multiple times, the UN Human Rights Committee has specifically demanded Finland to EXPAND the exemption given to JW's, based on freedom of conscience, meaning the constitutional committee is blatantly ignoring Finland's commitments on human rights, but as I said, this is not a surprise. What is surprising however, the committee found one problematic aspect of the bill...

I've mentioned this in previous posts, but the exemption given to JW's is not an automatic one, but a process. You see, in Finland you have to complete your service by the age of 28, meaning the moment you turn 29, you're considered too old for service. The exemption process for JW's basically allows them to delay the start of their service until they are too old. In order to do this, they have to provide officials with paperwork from the leaders of their congregation that they are active practitioners of their faith, which allows them to delay the start of their service by three years at a time and after repeating it couple of times, you're ultimately given final exemption. The governments proposal would have allowed a three month transition period, during which JW's who already started this process could apply for that final exemption: and it's this part the constitutional committee found problematic. As if the original bill wasn't bad enough.

The committee essentially argued that having this transition period would  would be discriminatory Since the people currently in the process are eligible for service based on their age, it would be discriminatory towards people who are the same age to give them the chance to completely skip service. The thing is, this would mean applying a new law retroactively. Isn't this a bit controversial?

Think about it. I'm 22, I was drafted in October 2015 at the age of 18. A JW drafted in the same year would have started the process in 2015 and repeated it once. This was the law at the time and still is at moment of writing this. Is it really the right thing to do to suddenly force him into service because the law changed? I don't think so. He has followed the law that existed at the time. How was he supposed to know the law would change within four years? 

So, what's next. Next stop for the bill is the defense committee, after which it will be voted by the parliament. In my last post I speculated whether or not the parliament will have time to vote on it because the election in April. Well, currently it seems it might. But, I guess we have to wait and see what happens next. No matter what happens, the fight continues.