|
Case Hermaja:[ English | Suomeksi | Nederlands | Français ]
|
|
Why am I a concientious objector?It is commonly accepted that the present-day bourgeois-democratic states do have the right to maintain a monopoly of violence in the areas, which they govern and which are internationally recognised. They can do this to ensure common order and keep the states legitimacy. It is also commonly accepted, that these democratic states have the right to maintain compulsory service system to keep up the hegemony of violence. On the other hand freedom of speech and thought are the basic rights of every human being. In a country where army is formed using compulsory enrolments -such as Finland - this means practically that those who are unwilling to serve in the army can carry out the compulsory service peacefully in civil service. In my opinion the possibility of completing the compulsory service as civil service -the possibility that is written in the Finnish law- doesn't, however, fulfil the demands of freedom of thought and other basic rights defined in the United Nations' Human Rights Declaration, a document also Finland -among many other countries- has signed. In Finland civil service is not an equal alternative in comparison to military service. Maybe the most glaring evidence about this is the fact that duration of civil service is more than two times longer than the duration of military service: those who choose civil service serve 13 months when the majority of military servants serve only 6 months. The number of people choosing civil service every year is considerably larger than the number of possible locations to serve civil service. Places that employ civil servants are not supervised adequately by the public authority which has lead to a situation in which significant number of employees are trampling the law-based economical rights of the civil servants. In the compulsory enrolment occasions civil service is not introduced as an equal alternative for military service. Often the possibility for civil service is not even mentioned in those occasions although it should -according to the law-be equally presented. In Finnish military system those who have completed their compulsory service as civil servants are not, however, set free from military service in the case of war. Under the circumstances listed above it is well justified to claim that in Finland the civil service is not an equal alternative for military service. The civil service is, in fact, a punishment for every civil servant for using the constitutional right of thought and freedom of conscience. The civil service system punishes an individual for refusing to learn to kill and handle guns and arms. There are also other cases where Finnish compulsory service system treats different groups of people unequally according to the principals of The Human Rights Declaration: women do not have the obligation of any kind to serve at all. The inhabitants of Åland are as well freed from the compulsory service. Neither do the Jehova's Witnesses have to do any kind of service because of their religion. It can be strongly questioned what makes the non-military ideology of Jehova's Witnesses more acceptable and different in basics than the ideology of other conscientious objectors. Under the facts that are said above it can be pointed out that the Finnish compulsory service system classifies different groups of people obliged and non-obliged for state service in very arbitrary basis which are certainly not in line with the principal of equality. If we consider the compulsory service system acceptable as such, the system should treat every citizen equally no matter what the person's religion, sex or habitation might be. As far as my conviction goes I could describe myself as a pacifist. I do not believe in security based on arms and armies. Armies do not create peace but conflicts -and possibilities to solve conflicts by using extensive violence. As the result, the roles of the victims are played by ordinary civilian people like you and me. The problems and political tensions in this planet are consequences of social and economical inequality. These kind of problems cannot be solved by using violence but by getting peoples minds directed to different values: solidarity, tolerance and mutual understanding between people. Armies present and defend selfish values of ruling capitalism systems and can never create peace on Earth -not even for a moment. Jussi Hermaja
Case Hermaja:
|
