Conscientious Objection in Finland

Report by Jukka Hämäläinen

I would like to start my report with a personal story.

Choosing the non-military service was not easy for me. After school young men normally decide what they want to do for their country. In Finland, serving either in the Defence Forces or in non-military service is compulsory for all male citizens, with some exceptions. I had decided to do the non-military service. But when I told this to my father, he got angry.

He got so angry that we could not discuss the matter at all. At that point I decided to postpone my service and start studying instead. I thought living a few years on my own would maybe give me the strength to do what I wanted to.

I started my non-military service when I was 26. I did it without telling my father. Later on my father asked me what I was going to do with the army. I had to answer him I had actually started my non-military service already. Surprisingly, he did not get angry. He asked me what it was specifically that I was doing in my service and when I told him he said it was OK. He also told me he had met other non-military servants when he was in the hospital. Those experiences had made him change his mind.

But why was my father that angry ten years ago?

In order to find the answer we have to go back to World War II. Those memories still affect the nation. Our country was attacked by the neighbouring Soviet Union and all men capable of fighting were called to arms. Practically every family had to send their men to the front. A big per centage of them never returned. Everyone knew someone who had lost his life in the battles.

Those men were honoured and still are. Defending our country is considered to be the duty of every Finnish man. Many people see conscientious objectors as betrayers.

This was background and as such only a half of the truth.

Today, we have a strongly growing number of non-military servicemen. Already 7 per cent of the call up -men go to the non-military service. In five years, the number has more than doubled.

A lot has changed during the past decade. Our laws regulating conscientious objection have become good. Non-military service is now a real choice. Also, the atmosphere has developed more friendly and acceptive towards conscientious objectors - like you could see in my father's case.

The fact that non-military service has become so popular has made military officers worried. They have started a discussion of how military service could be made more attractive. Also, the parliament has made military service possible for voluntary women.

In addition, an unofficial discussion has started about whether compulsory military service could be abolished in all. The nature of war has changed and some experts have recommended creating a new professional army, which would be a lot smaller than our present, but much better technically equipped.

Shorter servicetime have made the conscientious objection a more reasonable choice. For many years, the service time was unreasonably long. The 16 months of alternative service, compared to 8, 9 or 11 months in the army had a rather strong punitive character. Five years ago the non-military service was cut to 13 months, which is acceptable.

Also, our laws are mostly in line now with the resolutions of the European Parliament and other international bodies.

Since 1987 we have had a new law under which anyone who applies for non-military service is accepted. Before 87 the process for applying was very difficult. A friend of mine had to have two witnesses proving that his conviction was right and still he did not pass the first examination.

Now the process is simple. The applicant only has to fill out an application form, in which he declares his conviction. People can refuse from military service at any time, even after starting their military service.

The official information about conscientious objection is available at call up. In practise you get the information from your friends, through the media and non-governmental organisations.

The financial situation is equal for military and non-military servicemen. The service place is responsible for the serviceman's maintenance, i.e. accommodation, meals, health care and payment of the daily allowance. The state is responsible for travel costs. The State also covers the cost of servant's accommodation if the service place can not arrange it.

The organization of alternative service has nothing to do with the State Defence. Alternative service is directed and supervised by the Ministry of Labour.

The number of total objectors who refuse to serve at all, has reduced almost to zero. They are sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

So things are reasonably well, but we still meet some problems.

The main problem is that conscientious objection is regarded a right only during peace-time. Conscientious objection only means refusal to serve in the armed forces, at a time when there is no war. Every citizen is responsible for participating in national defence as prescribed in the Constitution. What conscientious ogjectors will be doing during war-time, is still an unanswered question.

A few years ago some of the alternative serving places were connected to the Defence Forces. For example some men served as firemen at airports where military aircraft operated. Those servicemen were worried, because they did not want to have anything in common with the Defence Forces. Nowadays we do not have these kind of problems.

The non-military service can be done in different places. The goal of the service is to promote general civil education by means of socially beneficial work. The work service is chiefly carried out in social service and health care, environmental protection, education and cultural work. These may include various institutions of administration, churches and parishes and non-profit organizations.

Conscientious objectors who are specialized in computers, are especially wanted in many organizations. A big part of us work in hospitals, at old people's homes or in various social institutions. Some of us have been serving in media branch. I served at the Press Centre of the Finnish Lutheran Church. I was writing texts to the Church databank. Also, the cultural sector is very interested in conscientious objectors, because they often are very competent.

Nowadays in some situations conscientious objection may be a disadvantage. E.g, police officers and guards are required to have a military training, even though the law disallowes this kind of discrimination in principle. Also, in practise, some employers might still have a suspicious attitude towards non-military servants.

Because we have people here from the church, it may be of interest to add a short prescription of how the Finnish Lutheran Church has changed its mind about conscientious objection. What has happened inside the church reflects a change among individuals and society as a whole.

Earlier our Church thought quite negatively about non-military service. Since World War II, our church has had many close ties with the Finnish Defence Forces. The Church stood by when the nation suffered the difficulties of the war.

In 1981, our Church leadership was asked by the state whether it would be possible to establish non-military service places in parishes or other Church institutions. The answer sounded strange: ÓThe Church defends the conscience of those refusing from armed service, but it can not promote non-military service. Doing so would make normal military service more difficult.

Two years later, the Church was asked again. The Church answered, that both military and non-military service were the business of the state, not of the Church.

During the last years the attitude of the Church has grown more positive towards non-military service. Since 1992, it has been possible to do non-military service in the Lutheran as well as in the Orthodox Church.

I would like to finish my report with couraging news from Finland: The son of the Finnish president has announced he will be a conscientious objector. The president has told for the media that he is very proud of his son.