Finnish CO seeks asylum in Belgium

[Tiriol]

From Helsingin Sanomat's online news.

Finnish CO seeks asylum in Belgium

Tuukka Masalin, a conscientious objector from Jyväskylä, who refuses to do both military service and alternative non-military service, has sought political asylum in Belgium.
In August he was given a six month prison sentence, which was to take effect at the beginning of January.
Masalin left Finland shortly before the sentence was to begin. He is now staying at a reception centre for asylum seekers near Brussels.
On the web site of the Finnish Union of Conscientious Objectors, Masalin says that he hopes to raise public debate in Finland. He sees the conscription system as unfounded, and the system of civilian service as a mere substitute for the military.

Masalin says that he chose to refuse all types of national service because of the many problems that he sees in the current conscientious objection system.
He says that the duration of alternative service is unreasonable, compared with what most conscripts have to serve in the military.
He also says that the prison sentences handed down on those who refuse all service are unreasonably long, and questionable from the point of view of human rights.
The Union of Conscientious Objectors has given its support to Masalin’s efforts.

Masalin is not the first Finnish CO to seek refuge in Belgium. In 2001 another Jyväskylä resident, Jussi Hermaja, sought political asylum in Belgium. He was refused, but Finland did not demand his extradition.
Hermaja’s sentence expired in the autumn of 2006, and he is no longer subject to mandatory military, or civilian service.

While I do agree that there are some difficulties in Finland's national service's system (namely that the civilian service branch is rather poorly devised), I still hold a dim view of this fellow and his actions. However, I'd like to see other people's reactions to this news (besides the furious trolling general degenerate "discussion" in official news forums here),

[Edi]

Fuck that piece of shit. The civil service side is longer, yes, but the people who choose to do it have far more freedom than the people who go to the military. They basically just do 8-hour workdays while conscripts are in 24 hours per day, are subject to far more restrictions and only have designated leave. So if doing 6 months of conscription is too hard and you're too much of a bloody whiner to do the 13 months of civil service side, then fuck you and go to prison. Sympathy for this whining invertebrate is going to be pretty hard to come by around here.

[Thanas]

In Germany we have a similar system, though the civil service is as long as the military service. Despite this and the fact that a lot of people do not even get called up, we get COs to. Mostly those are religious nuts on the scale of "No civil service because that supports the military anyway, but yes, benevolent state, please do the following things for us [insert list of demands here]."

[Flagg]

Wait, 13 months? That's it? When I read the article I was thinking it was like for 2 or 3 years. Fuck this twat. He's lucky to live in a country where CO's have the option of civil service.

[Lord Revan]

yeah the service lengths were (when I was in the service, could have changed then), 6,9,11(unarmed) and 12 months for military service, 13 for civil service.

while most people in the Military side serve only 6 months (9 and 12 are for service branches and officers and as said 11 is for unarmed service (essentially the same as normal apart from the fact they you don't (have to) handle weapons and you're no trained on their use)

[Tiriol]

yeah the service lengths were (when I was in the service, could have changed then), 6,9,11(unarmed) and 12 months for military service, 13 for civil service.

while most people in the Military side serve only 6 months (9 and 12 are for service branches and officers and as said 11 is for unarmed service (essentially the same as normal apart from the fact they you don't (have to) handle weapons and you're no trained on their use)

Those service time lengths are still in use; I was in service for 12 months (as an NCO).

My own problem with this man is this: not only he refuses to go to the military, but he also thinks that civil service is too long (even when it's considerably more free on the part of the service member than even the lightest and shortest military service possibility), but he also has the gall to try to avoid the legal repercussions of his actions. I mean, if he wants to protest against the system, then all fine by me, but don't try to run away when the legal system is applied to you as it is applied to everyone else. This is a sure way to make sure that nobody pays much attention to what you think or what your ideals are. Pester politicians to change the system or something constructive, since that option is always open - don't just whine and run to a foreign country after the Finnish system paid an insanely large sum in raising and educating you and making sure you actually have healthcare and would have continued to do so.

[Zixinus]

while most people in the Military side serve only 6 months (9 and 12 are for service branches and officers and as said 11 is for unarmed service (essentially the same as normal apart from the fact they you don't (have to) handle weapons and you're no trained on their use)

They don't fire a weapon? Excuse me, but this strikes as rather redundant. What's the point of being a trained soldier if you are not taught how to handle a weapon?

[[R_H]]

So if I read the above posts correctly, civil service is as long as military service (in Finland)?

Odd.

[Aaron]

They don't fire a weapon? Excuse me, but this strikes as rather redundant. What's the point of being a trained soldier if you are not taught how to handle a weapon?

Not every job in the military requires you to engage in combat or even learn to use a weapon. Various trades such as clerks, cooks, supply techs and PT instructors can all be rear echelon "never leave the base, never deploy" jobs. Remember for every guy at the pointy end of the stick there are at least three making sure he can stay there.

Edit: As for my thoughts on this guy; throw him in the pokey. If he had just objected to military service that would be fine but his entire reasoning reeks of not wanting to be inconvenienced. And his flight to Belgium just confirms this for me; I hope they deny it to him.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Every military needs a huge bureaucracy to function. Things such as monitoring manning levels, staffing levels, deploying and reassigning men, giving the men their pay, benefits, processing claims etc. etc. require lots of clerks and administrative personnel. No way any army can dodge that, and not paying the men is a sure fire way of provoking a mutiny.

[Terralthra]

Edit: As for my thoughts on this guy; throw him in the pokey. If he had just objected to military service that would be fine but his entire reasoning reeks of not wanting to be inconvenienced. And his flight to Belgium just confirms this for me; I hope they deny it to him.

He didn't want to be inconvenienced, as evidenced by his leaving the country? I should think that moving to another nation qualifies as "inconvenience."

[Aaron]

He didn't want to be inconvenienced, as evidenced by his leaving the country? I should think that moving to another nation qualifies as "inconvenience."

If he's given asylum he can continue life more or less as before, correct?

[Terralthra]

He didn't want to be inconvenienced, as evidenced by his leaving the country? I should think that moving to another nation qualifies as "inconvenience."

If he's given asylum he can continue life more or less as before, correct?

Er, sure, if you don't count whatever job, friends, and other local connections he had as part of his life.

[AMT]

A question about Civil Service in Finland:
Is it an actual competetively paid position, where you learn skills that can be used in later life?
Does it provide the regular benefits of a full time job?
Can you choose to continue in the field and position you are in, with room for advancement?

If so... this guy is a douche.

[Aaron]

Er, sure, if you don't count whatever job, friends, and other local connections he had as part of his life.

Maybe I can explain this better. His choices were:

1. Serve in the military
2. Serve in a government job
3. Go to jail
4. Flee to another country

He obviously did not want anything to do with the first three; in his mind seeking asylum may well have been the least inconvenience. His friends, family and other connections obviously were not as important to him as refusing to serve his obligation.

[Terralthra]

Maybe I can explain this better. His choices were:

1. Serve in the military
2. Serve in a government job
3. Go to jail
4. Flee to another country

He obviously did not want anything to do with the first three; in his mind seeking asylum may well have been the least inconvenience. His friends, family and other connections obviously were not as important to him as refusing to serve his obligation.

Having now defined inconvenience as "what he doesn't want to do," it is now tautological that he wants to avoid inconvenience. Brilliant, but it doesn't actually prove anything.

[Aaron]

Having now defined inconvenience as "what he doesn't want to do," it is now tautological that he wants to avoid inconvenience. Brilliant, but it doesn't actually prove anything.

Your right, consider the matter dropped.

[Tiriol]

They don't fire a weapon? Excuse me, but this strikes as rather redundant. What's the point of being a trained soldier if you are not taught how to handle a weapon?

Not every job in the military requires you to engage in combat or even learn to use a weapon. Various trades such as clerks, cooks, supply techs and PT instructors can all be rear echelon "never leave the base, never deploy" jobs. Remember for every guy at the pointy end of the stick there are at least three making sure he can stay there.

Just to point out that I actually served in an office capacity as NCO, so not every clerk duty goes to unarmed personnel. However the point still stands (and as I understand the unarmed conscripts serve in the positions you defined). This is just a pet peeve of mine, I heard enough about office personnel being lazy asses back in the service from other conscripts.

[Zixinus]

I'd just like to add that I'm an MSN buddy with a Israeli dude that has told me how he is counting the days until his mandatory military service comes to an end and how he started to hate the army over the years. Consider how long does Israel military service last and you'll get how much sympathy I have for the guy that could finish it up in 6-11 months.

Not every job in the military requires you to engage in combat or even learn to use a weapon. Various trades such as clerks, cooks, supply techs and PT instructors can all be rear echelon "never leave the base, never deploy" jobs. Remember for every guy at the pointy end of the stick there are at least three making sure he can stay there.

I guess that if they need more combat-worthy troops, they just can train these people as needed?

[Edi]

A question about Civil Service in Finland:
Is it an actual competetively paid position, where you learn skills that can be used in later life?
Does it provide the regular benefits of a full time job?
Can you choose to continue in the field and position you are in, with room for advancement?

If so... this guy is a douche.

No, not competitively paid. The pay is the same as conscripts get, so roughly €4 or €5 per day. Remember, we are talking about service required as civic duty by law. Depending on what kind of job you are put in, it may or may not be useful for later life, but you usually have some input on that. For example, one of the guys I went to highschool with went on to study to become a kindergarten teacher/supervisor and he chose civil service, which he did as a kindergarten teacher. So he sure as hell got a good deal out of it, as did the kindergarten in question.

I don't know what you mean by regular benefits of a full time job, unless you're talking about healthcare, which is indeed covered in full. It doesn't accrue any pension for you, or any vacation days or such like would happen in a normal job, but you do have healthcare coverage (and we have a free government run healthcare system anyway).

After your civil service is completed, you are discharged and that's that. Usually you can't be hired to the same place unless they are actively recruiting, which is usually not the case, but you can mark it up as job experience on your CV if it's relevant to your field, such as with that high school classmate of mine.

[Aaron]

Just to point out that I actually served in an office capacity as NCO, so not every clerk duty goes to unarmed personnel. However the point still stands (and as I understand the unarmed conscripts serve in the positions you defined). This is just a pet peeve of mine, I heard enough about office personnel being lazy asses back in the service from other conscripts.

Oh of course not. There is a fair amount of overlap in every trade and of course the company clerk in an operational unit would require combat training, even if it is just to defend the pay box.

I guess that if they need more combat-worthy troops, they just can train these people as needed?

I'm afraid you'll have to ask a Finnish member that question, I'm Canadian and not up with all of their practices. I assume they would just call up their Reserves, I'm given to understand that Finland does not participate in a large amount of operations and that their military is quite small.

[Tiriol]

Just to point out that I actually served in an office capacity as NCO, so not every clerk duty goes to unarmed personnel. However the point still stands (and as I understand the unarmed conscripts serve in the positions you defined). This is just a pet peeve of mine, I heard enough about office personnel being lazy asses back in the service from other conscripts.

Oh of course not. There is a fair amount of overlap in every trade and of course the company clerk in an operational unit would require combat training, even if it is just to defend the pay box.

The stories I could tell you about sending my clerk out to the wolves (conscripts) while I barricaded inside my office to protect the Most Holy Vacation List...

I guess that if they need more combat-worthy troops, they just can train these people as needed?

I'm afraid you'll have to ask a Finnish member that question, I'm Canadian and not up with all of their practices. I assume they would just call up their Reserves, I'm given to understand that Finland does not participate in a large amount of operations and that their military is quite small.

As I understand it, the unarmed conscripts are so because of their own decision - in effect, their ethics and/or religious stance are such that taking up arms would result in a crisis of conscience. They are as such relieved of armed training and service during times of peace (should war or similar crisis break out, they are handed assault rifles just as everyone else is).

[folti78]

I'd just like to add that I'm an MSN buddy with a Israeli dude that has told me how he is counting the days until his mandatory military service comes to an end and how he started to hate the army over the years.

Counting down the days to discharge... The age old hobby of soon to be discharged conscripts since time immemorial.

I guess that if they need more combat-worthy troops, they just can train these people as needed?

Depends on how many conscripts choose the unarmed service option. I couldn't able to dig up statistics, but what i remember in from the news in the early '90s, only an insignificant fraction of Hungarian conscritpts choosed the unarmed service option. Somewhere in the low tens to 100-200 from a pool of ~10000-15000 during each call-up. Can somebody provide some statistics for Finland?

A bit of tangent questions to the board's Finns:
How the public sees the conscription and the military service? Especially the would be conscripts?

If you were served in the army:
How the conscripts' living conditions on base could be compared to the civilian life?

How the officers and the professional soldiers treated the conscripts?

[AMT]

A question about Civil Service in Finland:
Is it an actual competetively paid position, where you learn skills that can be used in later life?
Does it provide the regular benefits of a full time job?
Can you choose to continue in the field and position you are in, with room for advancement?

If so... this guy is a douche.

No, not competitively paid. The pay is the same as conscripts get, so roughly €4 or €5 per day. Remember, we are talking about service required as civic duty by law. Depending on what kind of job you are put in, it may or may not be useful for later life, but you usually have some input on that. For example, one of the guys I went to highschool with went on to study to become a kindergarten teacher/supervisor and he chose civil service, which he did as a kindergarten teacher. So he sure as hell got a good deal out of it, as did the kindergarten in question.

I don't know what you mean by regular benefits of a full time job, unless you're talking about healthcare, which is indeed covered in full. It doesn't accrue any pension for you, or any vacation days or such like would happen in a normal job, but you do have healthcare coverage (and we have a free government run healthcare system anyway).

After your civil service is completed, you are discharged and that's that. Usually you can't be hired to the same place unless they are actively recruiting, which is usually not the case, but you can mark it up as job experience on your CV if it's relevant to your field, such as with that high school classmate of mine.

Only 4 or 5 per day? How do you live on that, exactly? And how does college/postsecondary education fit in with that?

[PainRack]

[quote="AMT]
Only 4 or 5 per day? How do you live on that, exactly? And how does college/postsecondary education fit in with that?[/quote]
Badly:D
I suspect that meals and some other costs are covered by the service, right?