Finland, as a country, at some level prides itself as being a free constitutional democracy, where people have strong constitutional human rights, and where the constitution itself is good, well-crafted, and something to be proud of.
When you dig deeper, however, it turns out that the Finnish Constitution is surprisingly weak, non-authoritative, and even largely nondescript, full of effectively null statements that may sound superficially good, but mean nothing.
I always like to contrast it with the United States Constitution, which has a significantly stronger role in the law-making of that country.
One key difference is the very wording of these two documents. For example, consider the wording of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (emphasis mine):
The Finnish Constitution, on the other hand, does not forbid anything. It simply gives a much more vague principle that "everybody has freedom of religion" and "everybody has freedom of speech", without actually imposing any limitations on the government itself to regulate those.
On the very contrary, the statute on freedom of religion explicitly does not forbid the government from having a state church, and the statute on freedom of speech, rather obnoxiously, explicitly gives carte blanche for the law to restrict free speech as the lawmakers wish.
And indeed, Finland does have an official state church (the Lutheran Church of Finland). This church has special privileges among all other denominations and religions (among other things, it can collect non-voluntary taxes from its members, backed by the government. No other denomination nor religion can do this, of course; not with the blessing of the government.)
The statute on freedom of speech is even more obnoxious. It's effectively saying "everybody can say whatever they want, unless it's forbidden by law." Which means pretty much nothing. You are allowed to do whatever is not illegal. But no restriction is put onto what is or isn't made illegal. How is this different from any totalitarian banana republic dictatorship?
And no, I'm not just ranting on some hypothetical scenarios that might happen. Finland has surprisingly totalitarian, and arbitrary, policies with regards to free speech.
For example, in the United States you can burn or otherwise deface a Bible and a Koran, and the government will not do anything to you. Heck, you could build a bonfire out of them. It's part of free speech. In Finland, however, if you do that, you will get jailtime. And this is not just theoretical; it has happened (for example there was this infamous case of a man who got over two years of jail because of drawing a picture of a Koran and defacing it. He didn't have an actual Koran, he just drew a picture of one himself.)
Similarly, people have been prosecuted and fined for criticizing Islam. There are actual cases.
On a different note, some years ago the copyright law of Finland was heavily reformed, and one thing that was made illegal was distributing information on how to crack copy protections on digital media. The issue was raised that this law was unconstitutional (because the constitution says that everybody has the right to distribute and receive any information without being impeded by anybody). The government's constitutional committee didn't agree, and allowed that part of the law to pass as-is. And why not: As said, the Finnish constitution gives lawmakers carte blanche to restrict free speech as they see fit. So, technically speaking, the law is not unconstitutional, because no law restricting free speech can be.
But it gets worse. Oh man, does it get worse.
Previously, section 9, subsection 3 of the Finnish constitution said (translation mine):
In 2004 there was a very infamous case where the two children of a woman (Kerstin Campoy), who were Finnish citizens, were extradited by a judge to their father in the United States, against the will of the mother and the children. The case became especially infamous in that it involved the police going to the woman's home and forcefully removing the children from there, in order to be forcefully extradited to the US.
This is one of the most egregious and blatant breaches of the Finnish constitution in the history of Finland. Forcefully extraditing Finnish citizens to another country against their will was so clearly and blatantly unconstitutional that it became a scandal.
So, what happened then? What happened is that three years later the government retroactively amended the above subsection to make the extradition legal, after the fact. That's what.
That's right. A judge blatantly ignores the Finnish Constitution and makes a judgment that's egregiously against it, the government and the police backs it up, them likewise ignoring the constitutional rights of those citizens, and then three years later the government goes and changes the constitution in order to retroactively justify their actions.
The subsection was amended by adding this to the end of it (translation mine):
Section 6 is another perfect example of a null statement that means nothing and dictates nothing. It says (translation mine):
And who decides what's a "justified reason"? The government, of course. So whatever the government decides, it's A-ok according to the constitution.
For example Finnish Universities regularly engage in student quotas based on ethnicity and origin. Unconstitutional? No, because the government deems it "justified".
Once again the Finnish Constitution does not restrict what the government does. If the government decides "this is a justifiable reason to discriminate against people based on these external characteristics", that's allowed. Which means that pretty much any sort of discrimination by the government is allowed, as long as they justify it somehow.
How about that part saying that people are equal before the law regardless of their opinion? Does that mean that if somebody has a negative opinion of a group of people A, and another person has a negative opinion of a group of people B, both should be treated equally before the law? In other words, either both are punished in the same way, or neither is?
Of course it doesn't work that way. If you express, for example, heavy criticism of Christianity, you probably won't get anything. But if you express heavy criticism of Islam, expect consequences (even up to being fined or even jailed). Of if you have a negative opinion of Americans, vs. if you have a negative opinion of, let's say, Africans. (Again, actual real-life cases.)
You know, because it's justified.
I find this absolute null statement to be the most hilarious in the entire Finnish constitution, found in section 2 (translation mine):
Well, who exactly is it that decides what the law is, that the government must follow? Well, the government itself. The government decides what rules it must follow.
Which means absolutely nothing. Heck, as seen previously, the government can even go and change the constitution itself to justify its own actions. Do something blatantly unconstitutional? No problemo, just change the law and the constitution itself to match.
Constitutional democracy my ass.
When you dig deeper, however, it turns out that the Finnish Constitution is surprisingly weak, non-authoritative, and even largely nondescript, full of effectively null statements that may sound superficially good, but mean nothing.
Freedom of religion and speech
I always like to contrast it with the United States Constitution, which has a significantly stronger role in the law-making of that country.
One key difference is the very wording of these two documents. For example, consider the wording of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (emphasis mine):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."The equivalent sections (11 and 12) of the Finnish Constitution state (translation and emphasis mine):
"Everybody has freedom of religion and conscience.and:
Freedom of religion and conscience include the right to avow and practice religion, the right to express a conviction and the right to be a member of any or no religious group. Nobody is required to participate in the exercise of a religion against their conscience."
"Everybody has freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes the right to express, publish and receive any information, opinions and other messages unimpeded by anybody. More specific regulations on the exercise of free speech is decreed by law."Notice how the approach is fundamentally different. The United States Constitution is talking to congress, to the government, categorically forbidding it from creating laws that establish a religion, or forbid people from exercising a religion, or reduce people's freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or the right of people to peaceably assemble.
The Finnish Constitution, on the other hand, does not forbid anything. It simply gives a much more vague principle that "everybody has freedom of religion" and "everybody has freedom of speech", without actually imposing any limitations on the government itself to regulate those.
On the very contrary, the statute on freedom of religion explicitly does not forbid the government from having a state church, and the statute on freedom of speech, rather obnoxiously, explicitly gives carte blanche for the law to restrict free speech as the lawmakers wish.
And indeed, Finland does have an official state church (the Lutheran Church of Finland). This church has special privileges among all other denominations and religions (among other things, it can collect non-voluntary taxes from its members, backed by the government. No other denomination nor religion can do this, of course; not with the blessing of the government.)
The statute on freedom of speech is even more obnoxious. It's effectively saying "everybody can say whatever they want, unless it's forbidden by law." Which means pretty much nothing. You are allowed to do whatever is not illegal. But no restriction is put onto what is or isn't made illegal. How is this different from any totalitarian banana republic dictatorship?
And no, I'm not just ranting on some hypothetical scenarios that might happen. Finland has surprisingly totalitarian, and arbitrary, policies with regards to free speech.
For example, in the United States you can burn or otherwise deface a Bible and a Koran, and the government will not do anything to you. Heck, you could build a bonfire out of them. It's part of free speech. In Finland, however, if you do that, you will get jailtime. And this is not just theoretical; it has happened (for example there was this infamous case of a man who got over two years of jail because of drawing a picture of a Koran and defacing it. He didn't have an actual Koran, he just drew a picture of one himself.)
Similarly, people have been prosecuted and fined for criticizing Islam. There are actual cases.
On a different note, some years ago the copyright law of Finland was heavily reformed, and one thing that was made illegal was distributing information on how to crack copy protections on digital media. The issue was raised that this law was unconstitutional (because the constitution says that everybody has the right to distribute and receive any information without being impeded by anybody). The government's constitutional committee didn't agree, and allowed that part of the law to pass as-is. And why not: As said, the Finnish constitution gives lawmakers carte blanche to restrict free speech as they see fit. So, technically speaking, the law is not unconstitutional, because no law restricting free speech can be.
Deporting Finnish citizens
But it gets worse. Oh man, does it get worse.
Previously, section 9, subsection 3 of the Finnish constitution said (translation mine):
"A citizen of Finland cannot be stopped from entering the country, deported from the country, or against their will extradited or moved to another country."Unusually clear and definitive. No exemptions, no buts, perhaps or maybes.
In 2004 there was a very infamous case where the two children of a woman (Kerstin Campoy), who were Finnish citizens, were extradited by a judge to their father in the United States, against the will of the mother and the children. The case became especially infamous in that it involved the police going to the woman's home and forcefully removing the children from there, in order to be forcefully extradited to the US.
This is one of the most egregious and blatant breaches of the Finnish constitution in the history of Finland. Forcefully extraditing Finnish citizens to another country against their will was so clearly and blatantly unconstitutional that it became a scandal.
So, what happened then? What happened is that three years later the government retroactively amended the above subsection to make the extradition legal, after the fact. That's what.
That's right. A judge blatantly ignores the Finnish Constitution and makes a judgment that's egregiously against it, the government and the police backs it up, them likewise ignoring the constitutional rights of those citizens, and then three years later the government goes and changes the constitution in order to retroactively justify their actions.
The subsection was amended by adding this to the end of it (translation mine):
"However, by law it can be decreed that a Finnish citizen, because of a crime, a trial, or a judgment pertaining the custody of children, can be extradited to a country where their human and legal rights are guaranteed."Because that's how it works in Finland. The constitution does not restrict what lawmakers and judges ought to do. Instead, lawmakers and judges decide what the constitution should allow them to do. And if it doesn't, they can go and patch it in.
Unequal treatment of people
Section 6 is another perfect example of a null statement that means nothing and dictates nothing. It says (translation mine):
"People are equal before the law.Sounds great, right? Except that there's that exemption of "without a justified reason".
Nobody can, without a justified reason, be put in a different position based on gender, age, origin, language, religion, conviction, opinion, health status, disability or any other personal characteristic."
And who decides what's a "justified reason"? The government, of course. So whatever the government decides, it's A-ok according to the constitution.
For example Finnish Universities regularly engage in student quotas based on ethnicity and origin. Unconstitutional? No, because the government deems it "justified".
Once again the Finnish Constitution does not restrict what the government does. If the government decides "this is a justifiable reason to discriminate against people based on these external characteristics", that's allowed. Which means that pretty much any sort of discrimination by the government is allowed, as long as they justify it somehow.
How about that part saying that people are equal before the law regardless of their opinion? Does that mean that if somebody has a negative opinion of a group of people A, and another person has a negative opinion of a group of people B, both should be treated equally before the law? In other words, either both are punished in the same way, or neither is?
Of course it doesn't work that way. If you express, for example, heavy criticism of Christianity, you probably won't get anything. But if you express heavy criticism of Islam, expect consequences (even up to being fined or even jailed). Of if you have a negative opinion of Americans, vs. if you have a negative opinion of, let's say, Africans. (Again, actual real-life cases.)
You know, because it's justified.
The most null statement of them all
I find this absolute null statement to be the most hilarious in the entire Finnish constitution, found in section 2 (translation mine):
"The acts of the government must be based on the law. All actions taken by the government must strictly follow the law."Why is this a completely null statement?
Well, who exactly is it that decides what the law is, that the government must follow? Well, the government itself. The government decides what rules it must follow.
Which means absolutely nothing. Heck, as seen previously, the government can even go and change the constitution itself to justify its own actions. Do something blatantly unconstitutional? No problemo, just change the law and the constitution itself to match.
Constitutional democracy my ass.
Comments
Post a Comment