I'm back!+conscription update
Well, it's been a while. It's been four months since my last post here, although that was not my plan. So, what has happened during this time? Short answer, work. As I've mentioned before, I actually work two jobs. Considering some of the things I've said here, it might be surprising that I work in security. I mainly work as a security guard and on the side as a bouncer. And as if working two jobs wasn't hard enough, bouncers mostly work nights, meaning I also have to deal with changing my daily cycle fairly regularly, which seriously messes up my sleep patterns.So basically, since I work to jobs, I don't have that much time to spend on writing and whenever I have any free time, lot of times I'm just too tired to focus on a longer post.
Now, since my last post I've changed jobs. I was hired as a substitute for the Summer, during which my job was mostly to guard the entrance to an industrial area and monitor the traffic. However that ended in the end of September as my contract ran out, though fortunately I was able to find a new job pretty quickly. Nowadays I actually have more free time than during the Summer, because I now mostly work 12 hour shifts which more days off, meaning I now have more time to write. I've also felt more motivated to start writing again, for two main reasons. For one, I recently got a chance to take part in a campaign called "Rauhan Tiellä", which is organized by Sadankomitea, a Finnish anti-war NGO. The idea of the campaign is to give everyday members a chance to have their views heard on the topic and I was invited to take part late last year. In practice this meant that I wrote a short text describing my views on peace and why I joined the organization, which can be read on the organizations website (in Finnish). This inspired me to start writing again, because it felt good to have my work published. Another reason for my newly found motivation is that 2019 is an election year in Finland, as we will see election for our national parliament as well as the European parliament. And let's just say there are some interesting factors that might influence the results in surprising ways, which I have plans to cover here. But for now, let's talk about conscription, yet again.
Now again, I've made multiple posts on this topic already, so I'll link relevant posts for more information. But in summary: Finland still retains conscription which means all men have to serve either in the military or complete alternative civil service. The so called total objectors who refuse both forms of service are given six month jail sentences, with the exception of Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's from now on), a practice which has received international criticism for human rights violations. Despite this, no real change has come about until last year when a total objector successfully appealed his case, arguing that the exemption given to JW's is discriminatory against other total objectors. Since then the Ministry of Defense set up a working group to figure out what to do with the situation. Based on the working groups results, the Finnish government has proposed legislation which would end the exemption given to JW's.
Since the successful appeal, the system has been in a flux as number of total objectors have been released in court. This is despite the fact that for the longest time the verdict wasn't final as the prosecutor in the case tried to appeal it to the supreme court, which could have pushed the final verdict into late 2019. However, in November 2018, the Finnish Supreme Court announced it would not take the case. In other words, the verdict is now final. This combined with the multiple cases where total objectors have been released both before and after the Supreme Courts decision means you can now refuse service without fear of being punished and many people have taken the chance. But how long will this last?
Now, as I already pointed out, the Finnish government has proposed legislation which would force JW's into service like everybody else and has expressed the need for urgency in pushing this legislation through. As a result, the parliament is scheduled to vote on it sometime in the Spring and when that happens, it's pretty much guaranteed to go through. The question is, will they have the time? Again, it's an election year in Finland, with the parliamentary elections scheduled for the 14th of April. Not only that, but parliament will go on recess on 15th of March due to the election, meaning that at the time of writing this the government only has little over a month to push through any legislation, including the whole sote-fiasco I wrote about in one of my earlier posts. So, there's still a chance that the parliament won't have time to vote on the proposed legislation and dealing with this matter would be passed on to the new government formed after the election, which might prevent this legislation from passing. It's a slim chance but it's something.
In previous posts I've already pointed out that removing the exemption for JW's is completely opposite to what critics of the system have demanded, so I'm not going into that again. Read the posts above if you want more info on that. Instead I'll look at this as an issue of discrimination, because that's what the court case I mentioned is all about: is it discriminatory to give an exemption to one group but exclude others from such a possibility? Most of you probably think the answer is obvious: yes it is. And since the Finnish constitution bans discrimination, this practice is quite clearly unconstitutional. Pretty simple, right? So when you remember that system only applies to men, meaning half of the population is exempt from service based on the bits between their legs, you can see that ending the special treatment of JW's doesn't really do shit if the goal is to end discrimination.
I've also mentioned this before, but this particular case was not the first time the discrimination argument has been used in court. It has been used countless times but only now taken seriously. In the past the courts have either completely ignored the argument or alternatively just kinda shrugged and said "Well yes, we agree this is unfair but what are we supposed to do? This is what the law says.". Even in this case, the Helsinki Court of Appeals made the decision to release the man by a vote of 4 to 3, with the three people voting against arguing that while the practice is discriminatory, changing the fact should be a legislative matter not a judicial one. So the question is, if the exemption given to JW's is repealed, how long it will take for a total objector to successfully claim in court that exempting women from service is discriminatory towards men? And in that case, what's the next move? Should women be forced into service as well?
The answer to the last question is no. Again, I've already covered this topic in earlier posts. There are number of reasons why it doesn't make sense, one being the fact that the military doesn't want it. The current system produces more than enough troops for their needs, so they see no need to force women into service. So if the the military doesn't want it, what to do? Some how suggested a form of "national service' which would apply to everybody equally which would allow some people to serve outside the military. This is approach would be at least as problematic as simply applying the current system to women, which is explained in the post above.
This whole situation just demonstrates the absurd nature of the debate around Finnish conscription. It seems most people see the current system to have some intrinsic value in it, which is why people are not willing to make any actual changes. This can be seen in the way the candidates of last years presidential election commented on the issue or how our current minister of defense suggested suspending women's voluntary service in order to save money, which he then explained as a wake up call on the need to save money on defense.
I've already said that this topic is a gift that keeps on giving. There's simply no end to this discussion and in fact, the discussion will simply get busier in the next few months. On the other hand, I just have more stuff to write about. You will hear more soon.
In the mean time, you can follow me on Twitter.
Now, since my last post I've changed jobs. I was hired as a substitute for the Summer, during which my job was mostly to guard the entrance to an industrial area and monitor the traffic. However that ended in the end of September as my contract ran out, though fortunately I was able to find a new job pretty quickly. Nowadays I actually have more free time than during the Summer, because I now mostly work 12 hour shifts which more days off, meaning I now have more time to write. I've also felt more motivated to start writing again, for two main reasons. For one, I recently got a chance to take part in a campaign called "Rauhan Tiellä", which is organized by Sadankomitea, a Finnish anti-war NGO. The idea of the campaign is to give everyday members a chance to have their views heard on the topic and I was invited to take part late last year. In practice this meant that I wrote a short text describing my views on peace and why I joined the organization, which can be read on the organizations website (in Finnish). This inspired me to start writing again, because it felt good to have my work published. Another reason for my newly found motivation is that 2019 is an election year in Finland, as we will see election for our national parliament as well as the European parliament. And let's just say there are some interesting factors that might influence the results in surprising ways, which I have plans to cover here. But for now, let's talk about conscription, yet again.
Now again, I've made multiple posts on this topic already, so I'll link relevant posts for more information. But in summary: Finland still retains conscription which means all men have to serve either in the military or complete alternative civil service. The so called total objectors who refuse both forms of service are given six month jail sentences, with the exception of Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's from now on), a practice which has received international criticism for human rights violations. Despite this, no real change has come about until last year when a total objector successfully appealed his case, arguing that the exemption given to JW's is discriminatory against other total objectors. Since then the Ministry of Defense set up a working group to figure out what to do with the situation. Based on the working groups results, the Finnish government has proposed legislation which would end the exemption given to JW's.
Since the successful appeal, the system has been in a flux as number of total objectors have been released in court. This is despite the fact that for the longest time the verdict wasn't final as the prosecutor in the case tried to appeal it to the supreme court, which could have pushed the final verdict into late 2019. However, in November 2018, the Finnish Supreme Court announced it would not take the case. In other words, the verdict is now final. This combined with the multiple cases where total objectors have been released both before and after the Supreme Courts decision means you can now refuse service without fear of being punished and many people have taken the chance. But how long will this last?
Now, as I already pointed out, the Finnish government has proposed legislation which would force JW's into service like everybody else and has expressed the need for urgency in pushing this legislation through. As a result, the parliament is scheduled to vote on it sometime in the Spring and when that happens, it's pretty much guaranteed to go through. The question is, will they have the time? Again, it's an election year in Finland, with the parliamentary elections scheduled for the 14th of April. Not only that, but parliament will go on recess on 15th of March due to the election, meaning that at the time of writing this the government only has little over a month to push through any legislation, including the whole sote-fiasco I wrote about in one of my earlier posts. So, there's still a chance that the parliament won't have time to vote on the proposed legislation and dealing with this matter would be passed on to the new government formed after the election, which might prevent this legislation from passing. It's a slim chance but it's something.
In previous posts I've already pointed out that removing the exemption for JW's is completely opposite to what critics of the system have demanded, so I'm not going into that again. Read the posts above if you want more info on that. Instead I'll look at this as an issue of discrimination, because that's what the court case I mentioned is all about: is it discriminatory to give an exemption to one group but exclude others from such a possibility? Most of you probably think the answer is obvious: yes it is. And since the Finnish constitution bans discrimination, this practice is quite clearly unconstitutional. Pretty simple, right? So when you remember that system only applies to men, meaning half of the population is exempt from service based on the bits between their legs, you can see that ending the special treatment of JW's doesn't really do shit if the goal is to end discrimination.
I've also mentioned this before, but this particular case was not the first time the discrimination argument has been used in court. It has been used countless times but only now taken seriously. In the past the courts have either completely ignored the argument or alternatively just kinda shrugged and said "Well yes, we agree this is unfair but what are we supposed to do? This is what the law says.". Even in this case, the Helsinki Court of Appeals made the decision to release the man by a vote of 4 to 3, with the three people voting against arguing that while the practice is discriminatory, changing the fact should be a legislative matter not a judicial one. So the question is, if the exemption given to JW's is repealed, how long it will take for a total objector to successfully claim in court that exempting women from service is discriminatory towards men? And in that case, what's the next move? Should women be forced into service as well?
The answer to the last question is no. Again, I've already covered this topic in earlier posts. There are number of reasons why it doesn't make sense, one being the fact that the military doesn't want it. The current system produces more than enough troops for their needs, so they see no need to force women into service. So if the the military doesn't want it, what to do? Some how suggested a form of "national service' which would apply to everybody equally which would allow some people to serve outside the military. This is approach would be at least as problematic as simply applying the current system to women, which is explained in the post above.
This whole situation just demonstrates the absurd nature of the debate around Finnish conscription. It seems most people see the current system to have some intrinsic value in it, which is why people are not willing to make any actual changes. This can be seen in the way the candidates of last years presidential election commented on the issue or how our current minister of defense suggested suspending women's voluntary service in order to save money, which he then explained as a wake up call on the need to save money on defense.
I've already said that this topic is a gift that keeps on giving. There's simply no end to this discussion and in fact, the discussion will simply get busier in the next few months. On the other hand, I just have more stuff to write about. You will hear more soon.
In the mean time, you can follow me on Twitter.
Kommentit
Lähetä kommentti