Talk:Human rights in Finland

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in Finland article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finland High‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

8 months is not the average armed service in Finland

Far more than half of the conscriptees in Finland serve for 6 months, the minimum term. The other service lengths are 9 and 12 months for officer training; not nearly enough people enter those to drive the average two months from 6. It should be noted that the 8 months as average term claim was disputed by pro-peace organizations and the civil servicemen's union, as it was used as an excuse why a 12 month civil service term would not be punitive in length alone (as the 13-month one was said to be). This matter was a sore spot for Finland's right-wing government at the time, as Finland was on Amnesty's concern list for the treatment of conscription refuseniks: Amnesty's basis for this was that the 13-month alternative term was obviously punitive and thus a sentence of hard time is contrary to human rights. Apologies, but all my sources are either in Finnish or not online. -- 194.187.213.95 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be necessary to write something about Sami people and ILO Convention (No. 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.169.153 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ancient issue but I'd like to remind you that 9 and 12 month service times aren't only for officers. Only regular infantry and artillerymen serve 6 months. Officers, NCOs, all military police, some border troops, all special forces, all drivers, all APC/AFV crews, all medics and those associated with the Navy (except basic seamen) or the Air Forces and even military musicians serve 9 or 12 months. And there's lots of these guys as every garrison has at least one MP company and one logistics company and some medics. There's also many "surplus" NCOs in some branches so you can't really calculate their share estimating how many of them there "should" be. 8 months is totally plausible. 213.243.139.191 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

drugged for deportation

The case refers to Ukrainians who had claimed refugee status but were denied and slated for deportation. When the family refused to be deported, the police ordered the police station's doctor to drug the deportees. Polemic ensued when the doctor refused to do so, citing ethical reasons, and the refugee detention center's nurse was pressured by the police to administer the sedatives instead of the doctor. In the end, the police was cleared of any wrongdoing and the court instead fined both the doctor (for failing to his duties) and the nurse (for accepting duties that fall outside of what nurses are allowed to perform). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.227.35 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election of city mayors

Ilaiho removed my addition: "The politicians elect the mayors. This increase the risk of corruption. The mayor has no direct responsibility to the citizens." [1]. This is an open opportunity for everybody. Please add reference in the critics. I remember reading from the HS pages critics of a lawyer that the Finnish mayors are not in true accountability to the voters. Watti Renew (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Women harrassment in the Parliament

Some years ago there was a scandal of women harassment in the Parliament of Finland. This was reported in Helsingin Sanomat. A conservative (National Coalition Party) member of Parliament sued Helsingin Sanomat in the court of writing about the feelings of the women. Some male MP names were given based on interviews. The result was in my opinion the most worrying and distracting. The Parliament decided that if women feel harassment in the Parliament they have no right to use their freedom of expression about it. The problems must be solved in secret within the Parliament and voters have no right to know about it. Wouldn't the publicity be the most effective way to equality of sex in the politics? Can such a decision be legal? In my opinion the freedom of expression must be followed based on the international agreements. This freedom should include also the expression of critics of men in the parliament and feelings of harassment. Feeling of harassment is subjective. However, there was little apologies by the members of the Parliament. Instaed persons concerned denied the feelings of the counterparty and sued the newspaper. The Parliament removed the freedom of expression of the persons concered. Help. Is this ok? How it would have been addressed in other countries? Watti Renew (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the said MP lost that court case. Anyone can make allegations, but those can be subject to the Finnish laws regarding defamation. I don't see this as a human rights question. --128.214.197.79 (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the restriction of the freedom of expression in the House of Parliament is in conflict with Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 that Finland has ratified: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Watti Renew (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the harassment thing doesn't seem to be a current problem in the eduskunta, more like a thing of the past: http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/Seksuaalinen+h%C3%A4irint%C3%A4+v%C3%A4heni+eduskunnassa/a1377578232883 --128.214.197.79 (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consevatives and lack of funds to investigate sex discrimination at work

User:128.214.197.79, I recommend to register.

Your removal [2]: (The Finland's Ombudsman for Equality lacks personnel resources to enforce the law - that requires companies to make a gender equality plan in companies)
- As leading party the conservative National Coalition Party has been in government for recent years and prevented sufficient funds to investigate sex discrimination cases at work.

You have right in respect that all parties do need to cooperate and none can work alone.

However, in my opinion this deserves place. The conservatives (National Caolition Party = Kok. or Kokoomus) have been in the government during the time period the funds have not been sufficient to fulfill the sex equality. The small parties have small opportunity to influence one single law alone. The biggest parties are Kok., sdp (Social Democratic Party of Finland) and Centre Centre Party of Finland. Kok. has been in all the governments in the reacent years. Kokoomus won the latest elections and have prime minister. In my opinion the addition is correct and gives better understanding of the situation. Watti Renew (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia we must follow what the credible sources say instead of doing original research and/or synthesis. This applies to the section above as well. --128.214.197.79 (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International

User:Jaakko Sivonen [3], Greenpeace concern and message was international. Issue may be included in the Greenpeace page if you like. Here it deserves in my opinion place, since I can continue with the respond in Finland. Watti Renew (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't happen in Finland, and it doesn't concern the human rights situtation in Finland. If anything, it concerns the human rights situation in Russia. The activists came from several different countries: into how many articles do you want to write about them? This article isn't intended for issues outside of Finland. We can't include on this page all those countless of cases where Finnish citizens have been arrested in other countries. Your actions also seem to be recentist: this is not Wikinews. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in Finland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Cases" subsection needs updating

The section mentions a ECHR decision against Finland in the case of the Iraqi asylum seeker. On 7/13/2021, this decision was overturned, after it was found the documentation the applicant's case rested on was forged, and the case was duly dismissed as inadmissible. Please see https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finland_did_not_violate_human_rights_in_iraqi_asylum_seeker_fake_death_case_european_court_says/12019460 for a news source on this, and https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22sort%22:%5B%22kpdate%20Descending%22%5D,%22respondent%22:%5B%22FIN%22%5D,%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-211120%22%5D} for the court decision.

Would take to the task myself, but not comfortable with the editor except for minor edits.

HeartielAction (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]