Relax : inequality isn't an equality issue

A number of years ago, I discovered that because of my dual nationality, I was required by law to register with the American military in case there was another Vietnam-style draft. This was something I wouldn't have had to do if I was a woman. Of course, at the time, it was the idea of getting my brains blown out (to use the Blackadder term) for a country I'd never even lived in that irritated me considerably more than the inequality issue, but the latter point didn't go unnoticed all the same. It wasn't a big deal in the end because there was never any real danger of being conscripted, but there are of course a number of Western democracies in which conscription is routine, and which operate a discriminatory policy between the genders. One of them is Finland, and if the translations in this not-so-old article are accurate, some of the 'non-justification justifications' for upholding that discrimination in a supposed age of gender equality are truly wondrous to behold -

"Finland’s Minister for Equality Affairs Stefan Wallin (Swedish People’s Party) says that he does not want to change the current system, even though he understands “that not everyone feels that it is equal if an obligation applies to only one gender.""

Ah, not everyone feels that is equal, do they? I wonder if the (now former) Minister for "Equality Affairs" could explain in plain language how anyone in their right mind could possibly conclude that such a state of affairs is in any reasonable sense of the word "equal"?

“What would be the alternative? This requires a broad-based approach. I have pondered this as both the equality minister, and as a captain of the reserves, and the present system is the best that is available.”

Yes, what could possibly be the alternative, Stefan? It's a real poser, there's no denying it. Now let me see. How about this - either conscription is made compulsory for both genders, or for neither. Or, if there is some kind of mystical perfection to the current numbers, there could be a lottery under which exactly 50% of all men and women are randomly conscripted. That took me all of five seconds.

“The country’s security, and the coverage of state expenditure can never be based on voluntary contributions. The state needs taxes to be paid by everyone, and military service from men.”

Hmmm. I wonder if "not everyone" would agree that the above statement is entirely fair and equal. After all, I would think it was quite unfair if a politician was to say "the state needs military service from everyone, and taxes to be paid by women", but then maybe I'm just weird.

"Arto Satonen (Nat. Coalition Party), the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality, also does not see military discrimination against men as a problem. “There is no point in making this an equality issue. National defence is more important.”"

OK, so now it is indeed "unequal", but that's not a "problem". Do you know what I'm beginning to suspect is the real problem here - appointing so many flippin' militarists as spokespeople on "equality". It's the rough equivalent of appointing Sir Peter Tapsell as Minister for Women.

"Minister of Defence Jyri Häkämies (Nat. Coalition Party) takes the same view. “I have not noticed widespread support for the equality point of view, so we will continue on the basis of the present model.”"

So now equality doesn't matter a damn as long as politicians don't "notice" the majority of people actively supporting it? Heaven help minority groups if that's the guiding principle in Finland.

"Häkämies and Wallin would be ready to send draft letters to women, to inform women about their option of military service. However, both ministers would keep women’s military service voluntary."

Oh well, say no more, chaps. Who needs equality before the law when you're perfectly prepared to write to women to helpfully remind them that they alone have the right to choose?

The article concludes with two comments by feminists, which can only be described as weasel words -

"The chairwoman of the Feminist Association Unioni, Henna Leppämäki, does see male conscription as an equality issue.

“However, Unioni will not be the first to demand the abolition of conscription. I would hope that men would grab on to this. We will certainly support them.”

Leena Ruusuvuori, Secretary-General of the National Council of Women of Finland, says that conscription can be seen to contain problems for gender equality.

Ruusuvuori, who once opposed the current system of voluntary military service for women, nevertheless feels that the first priority should be to make the Defence Forces more equal, and only then to address the matter of conscription."

So Ms Leppämäki will not "be the first" to demand the end to conscription, but in the meantime is she "the first" to demand that women should be subject to compulsory conscription on the same basis as men while she umms and errs on the broader point? It's hard to imagine many other gender equality issues on which a feminist union would feel it "wasn't its place" to speak out about, and that it should instead let "men" (in a startlingly non-specific sense) take the lead on.

As for Ms Ruusuvuori, perhaps she could explain how on earth the Defence Forces can possibly be made more equal before addressing the issue of discriminatory rules on conscription?

Questions to which the answer is 'just before I answer that question, how about a game of hide-and-seek?'

The latest in Labour Hame's series of "impossible" questions for nationalists is this -

In what way would Scotland be better off in the euro, with interest rates set in Brussels rather than London?

Answer : We would have a direct vote in the decision-making process in a way that we don't have at the moment. And in case you're thinking of mentioning Danny Alexander at this point, don't make me laugh. A Scottish representative in the UK government would be a person chosen by Scotland, not by Nicholas William Peter Clegg.

But as ever, in posing this rather easy question, the admin of Labour Hame has drawn attention to a much more tricky question for his/her own comrades, if they can find the time in their busy schedules to answer. Given that "no issue more clearly illustrates the irrelevance of independence in the modern world than the question of national currency", I can't help but wonder this -

In what sense is the independence of Finland, a country with an almost identical population size to Scotland, an "irrelevance" now that they have joined the euro? Would they really not notice the difference if they gave up the ghost and became an autonomous province of Germany?

No rush, guys - in true Labour Hame style, I won't be declaring the question UNANSWERED for at least six minutes.

Finland's cult of youth

The big news from the Finnish general election is the advance of the party True Finns, described by Wikipedia as combining "left-wing economic policies with strongly conservative social values". On the face of it they sounds a bit like the Polish Law and Justice Party that has proved such a controversial ally for the Tories in the European Parliament. While I was at Wikipedia, I felt moved to correct the curious assertion that True Finns had won a 'landslide victory' in the election - they may have done remarkably well in comparison to last time, but they're still in third place in terms of both votes and seats. I wonder if that nugget of wisdom was added by the people who brought us the moronic No to AV campaign ad!

What leapt out at me, though, was how extraordinarily young most of the party leaders are. If you think we've got a slightly silly cult of youth in UK politics, with the three 'main' party leaders all in their early-to-mid 40s, that's as nothing compared to the situation in Finland. Here are the ages of the eight leaders whose parties have parliamentary representation...

Jyrki Katainen (National Coalition Party) - 39
Jutta Urpilainen (Social Democratic Party) - 35
Timo Soini (True Finns) - 48
Mari Kiviniemi (Centre Party, current Prime Minister) - 42
Paavo Arhinmäki (Left Alliance) - 34
Anni Sinnemäki (Green League) - 37
Stefan Wallin (Swedish People's Party) - 43
Päivi Räsänen (Christian Democrats) - 51

Eurovision 2010 prediction : Tuesday's semi-final

Well, what with all the excitement of the general election (for 'excitement' read 'unremitting gloom') I've shamefully neglected the Eurovision season this year. But I couldn't let the contest go by without at least pitting my wits against other bloggers in the prediction stakes. At this stage two years ago, I correctly predicted all ten qualifiers from the first semi-final (I may possibly have mentioned this once or twice before). Not so hot last year, but seven out of ten was respectable enough. Let's see how I get on this time - in no particular order, these are the ten countries I think will make it through tonight...

Bosnia-Herzegovina
Russia
Portugal
Finland
Iceland
Greece
Belgium
Albania
Serbia
Belarus

I wouldn't have given Finland a prayer when I first heard the song, but I'm guessing the vibrant visual performance and the song's distinctiveness might well be enough. Iceland deserves to fall flat on its face after entering a near carbon-copy of their 2008 effort This Is My Life, but of course almost by definition it has a similar appeal to that song, so I suspect we'll be seeing it again on Saturday night.

As for me - well, for a third year in a row, my heart seems to be with Portugal. I've never even been to Portugal...

Weasel words from Murphy

The Scotsman is reporting that Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy will continue Labour's propaganda war against the SNP's non-nuclear policy in a speech on Monday. He will apparently draw attention to what he describes as an "increasing consensus" in Europe that nuclear power must form part of any serious climate change strategy. Now, if ever you wanted to see a textbook example of weasel words, there it is! "Increasing consensus" is code for "actually there isn't a consensus at the moment - but Finland have changed their mind, so that's a start".

Eurovision preview part 1 - horizontal choreography?

Finland made its selection for Eurovision almost simultaneously with the UK, and this is what they came up with -


Waldo's People
Lose Control

I'm on a critical mission, got my destiny in my hands
Like Peter Piper I take control, put a spell on the mass
I cause hysteria, worry yourself, that's how I roll
It's not a drill, I'm for real, I'm a man who's out of control


As is refreshingly typical at the Eurovision, the above lyrics could be described as 'thought-provoking' and 'challenging' (ie. utter gibberish). Although needless to say I hand-picked what was easily the daftest bit! Perhaps an I Wanna-style makeover by a fluent English speaker is in order.

Of course the video probably bears very little resemblance to what we'll see on stage. Pity, really - we might have thought the contest had exhausted all the conceivable gimmicks over the years, but as far as I'm aware no previous act has utilised the obvious potential of fire, shopping trolleys, woolly hats and horizontal rapping in an anorak.

My thoughts - a very appealing song, moderately catchy, and although we haven't heard the bulk of the entries yet I suspect when we have I'll still think this deserves to qualify for the final. However, I fear it might lack the dynamism it needs to stand out and get the votes. Like the UK, Finland have almost four months to experiment and find the arrangement that will work best on the night.

My issues with this year's Eurovision contestants - no. 6

Teräsbetoni of Finland

"Missä miehet ratsastaa
Siellä lampaat ei voi laiduntaa"

TRANSLATION -
"Where the men ride
There the sheep can't pasture"

This is undeniably informative, but does such commendable attention to detail really lend itself to a situation where you're got just three minutes to impress the whole of Europe? Maybe it does, and if Finland win tomorrow, I'll seriously consider entering a song next year that takes regular detours to ponder the latest fascinating evidence on the causes of peat-bog erosion in eighteenth century Kazakhstan.