A reality this world is facing once again is economical hardships. Helsingin Sanomat writes articles daily about cutting expenses both in national as well as municipal levels. It is with out a doubt extremely difficult to tighten the belt where ever possible, and still keep the services running.
But are the services running? There are several articles weekly that state very clearly what the envitable consequences are, if funding is cut from one of the most fragile sectors of the society: children and families struggling with multiple problems, teenagers and school end up in equal agony, the elderly are left with out decent care even if they have contributed their entire lives to the community in form of taxes. Yet Finland is doing its ultimate best to cut the expenses exactly where it can do most harm.
Are decision makers then blind and deaf? It was only ten years ago when funding was last cut with dramatic consequences, and never returned back to "normal" even though the city was doing better financially. Now the cuttings are being cut from an already lowered level. Specialists repeat after repeating that it would be very important to lower the sizes of classes in schools and daycares, and what are the schools forces to do: enlarge the classes. Several types of social support systems that the community should offer to families under heavy stress are minimized.
Does this development not lead to permanently psychologically damaged (young) people, that could have been saved if proper care was available? More and continuous school schootings? Or another madnes: married senior citizens being placed in different homes?
An easy answer is of course to merely say "These are such difficult decisions. Who is more important than others? This new museum was budgeted a year ago already, so it cannot be changed."
Why not?!
One thing is for sure: The city of Espoo, where I live, has highly questionable priorities. Next to my house a new out doors path is being build. It looks fabulous: very wide with beautiful lamps, like a joggers freeway really. The old path runs right next to it. It's a bit more narrow. There was absolutely a need for a new out doors path.
tiistai 18. elokuuta 2009
perjantai 26. kesäkuuta 2009
The contraversies of violence-related laws
Around the middle of June 2009 there was a small article in Helsingin Sanomat with a headline "Domestic violence needs to have limits". The article states that in recent years in Finland 20-26 women have died because of their spouces or ex-partners. The real shock was yet to come: the Minister of Justice in Finland has received a memorandum about an initiative for a law, that demands even minor domestic violence cases to fall under general procecution.
What?!? This means that such a law does not yet exist in Finland. June 19th 2009 the editorial handled this very topic revealing that at the current situation in cases of minor domestic violence it is up to the victim to start a legal process.
How can a wellbeing state like Finland be only now in 2009 going towards better legal protection for victims of domestic violence? Better now than never of course.
What is MINOR violence? Being hit with out bleeding? Where does the line go? Who gets to decide what type of violence creates more or less pain in the victim? The editorial sets to light another important perspective: the threat of violence is oppressing enough.
The last few years I have grown sceptical and critical concerning the Finnish justice system. Finland is concidered a country of absolute justice, yet as a country we are continuesly getting reclamations from the EU for the failures in the system. Recent example is the fact that legal processes take too long.
In my opinion many laws should be carefully re-evaluated. I cannot find any decent explanation to the fact that the punishment is lower for a rape that has not fulfilled the demands of a "especially brutal rape". Rape is rape. Does it really matter to the victim if the perpetrator had a knife along? One can do a lot of physical damage, not to even mention mental one, with two bare hands.
Most extreme example of an uncomprehendable grievance is: accoring to the law in Finland there is a difference between "rape" and "forcing someone to sexual intercourse".
What exactly is the difference??
The police makes 15 000 - 20 000 house calls annually in Finland that are related to violence. 4000 of these proceed to criminal processing. The prevailing conditions of people involved in (domestic) violence are often very complex and I have absolutely sympathy for the weakness of the victims to proceed leagally. That is why the society has to help those, who cannot help themselves. This new law in Finland doesn't come a day too soon.
What?!? This means that such a law does not yet exist in Finland. June 19th 2009 the editorial handled this very topic revealing that at the current situation in cases of minor domestic violence it is up to the victim to start a legal process.
How can a wellbeing state like Finland be only now in 2009 going towards better legal protection for victims of domestic violence? Better now than never of course.
What is MINOR violence? Being hit with out bleeding? Where does the line go? Who gets to decide what type of violence creates more or less pain in the victim? The editorial sets to light another important perspective: the threat of violence is oppressing enough.
The last few years I have grown sceptical and critical concerning the Finnish justice system. Finland is concidered a country of absolute justice, yet as a country we are continuesly getting reclamations from the EU for the failures in the system. Recent example is the fact that legal processes take too long.
In my opinion many laws should be carefully re-evaluated. I cannot find any decent explanation to the fact that the punishment is lower for a rape that has not fulfilled the demands of a "especially brutal rape". Rape is rape. Does it really matter to the victim if the perpetrator had a knife along? One can do a lot of physical damage, not to even mention mental one, with two bare hands.
Most extreme example of an uncomprehendable grievance is: accoring to the law in Finland there is a difference between "rape" and "forcing someone to sexual intercourse".
What exactly is the difference??
The police makes 15 000 - 20 000 house calls annually in Finland that are related to violence. 4000 of these proceed to criminal processing. The prevailing conditions of people involved in (domestic) violence are often very complex and I have absolutely sympathy for the weakness of the victims to proceed leagally. That is why the society has to help those, who cannot help themselves. This new law in Finland doesn't come a day too soon.
torstai 9. huhtikuuta 2009
Big improvements or small improvements?
In the beginning of April 2009 big part of the Western world was shaken by the news of the new Family-law in Afghanistan. Not having seen the original text of the law, thus depending on the sources of Finnish media, the law jeoperdizes the already fragile position and value of women even more, for instance by allowing a man to force intercourse with his wife, and allowing 9 year old girls to marry. The law also hinders women's ability to leave their homes and to study and work.
Once again there is evidence that outside pressure does have an effect on issues and practices: Due to international attention against the law it has been decided to at least post pone. Some changes have also been made; girls need to be 16 years old to marry, and women are allowed to leave their homes to study or work. Women's "responsibility to satisfy their husband sexually" has not yet been removed and the law may still be put to force.
It is outstanding that the government in Afghanistan has even as much as concidered changing any law because of international pressure. Still, I doubt how much protection the old law (was there any?) gave to women. Women in countries like Afghanistan and Soudi-Arabia for example have been so oppressed "forever" that I don't think any law makes much of a difference in their real lives. I am only happy, if I am wrong about this.
An incident comes to my mind from a few years back when a young women faced stoning to death. I think she was from Pakistan. Amnesty and several other human rights organizations, numerous individuals globally and even some states protested so heavily against the treatment of the woman, that she was pardoned. Big headlines screamed for her pardoning, and when the results came, there was only a small article saying that she will not be stoned to death after all. Reading further, she was to be executed on a more human way. Death faced her any way, but the pardon was, that she would face a more pleasant death. And her original crime? Being raped by her uncle.
Nevertheless, pressure from all levels, let it be individuals and multinational organizations, does help. Improvements in these processes may seem insignificant to us living in the western world, but they might mean the world to those in fragile, dangerous positions.
Once again there is evidence that outside pressure does have an effect on issues and practices: Due to international attention against the law it has been decided to at least post pone. Some changes have also been made; girls need to be 16 years old to marry, and women are allowed to leave their homes to study or work. Women's "responsibility to satisfy their husband sexually" has not yet been removed and the law may still be put to force.
It is outstanding that the government in Afghanistan has even as much as concidered changing any law because of international pressure. Still, I doubt how much protection the old law (was there any?) gave to women. Women in countries like Afghanistan and Soudi-Arabia for example have been so oppressed "forever" that I don't think any law makes much of a difference in their real lives. I am only happy, if I am wrong about this.
An incident comes to my mind from a few years back when a young women faced stoning to death. I think she was from Pakistan. Amnesty and several other human rights organizations, numerous individuals globally and even some states protested so heavily against the treatment of the woman, that she was pardoned. Big headlines screamed for her pardoning, and when the results came, there was only a small article saying that she will not be stoned to death after all. Reading further, she was to be executed on a more human way. Death faced her any way, but the pardon was, that she would face a more pleasant death. And her original crime? Being raped by her uncle.
Nevertheless, pressure from all levels, let it be individuals and multinational organizations, does help. Improvements in these processes may seem insignificant to us living in the western world, but they might mean the world to those in fragile, dangerous positions.
tiistai 24. helmikuuta 2009
Views about gender equality
Sunday February 15h 2009 there was an article in the Finnish national newspaper Helsingin Sanomat about the Taliban in the Swat valley of Pakistan. According to the article people in the area are to listen to the radio daily and follow the rules of how to behave. The rules are set by the Taleban. One of the rules is to not let girls go to school. First idea that came to my head was: why are girls and women seen as such a threat in some cultures?!
I got one answer from a dedicated female muslim, Ms. Raquel Evita Saraswati from the United States, who states in an interview in Helsingin Sanomat on February 21st 2009, that "The Koran engourages towards gender equality, but women as a group are seen as second class citizens amongst the islamists and fundamentalists, and in areas where these groups are in power, women are in great danger. Gender and sexuality are questions of life and death for muslims". Ms. Saraswati states further that all of the violent customs that a large number of women are exposed to are ways to suppres women in the name of religion.
Interesting contradiction concerning gender equality appears by viewing another headline in Helsingin Sanomat on February 14th 2009 about a female terrorist killing tens of people in Iraq. The headline of the article started with the word “Femaleterrorist”. I could not but wonder, if I have ever seen a headline “Maleterrorist”. This lead me thinking about the transparent, yet very meaningful “gender equality in terrorism” concerning acts of violence: the act has been especially meaningful, even especially brutal if the perpetrator was a women.
Is violence than more extreme when done by a woman? This particular individual of whom the article was written about had put a bomb under her clothes and exploded herself in a tent full of women and children, resting while participating in a pilgrimage. Had she been a he, they would’ve addressed him as a suisidebomber.
Islam is not the only religion that doesn't value women equally with men. There are male priests and other employees in some perishes in Finland, who refuse to work side by side with female priests. In March 2009 a few middle aged youth workers in a perish in Finland were permanently fired from their jobs because of their gender-discriminative convictions.
Back to the Taliban in the Swat valley, the fact that they so desperately want to stop girls from getting an education, is almost as if they acknowledge the fact, that giving girls and women access to education does benefit the person in question, as well as the entire community significantly. Endless efforts on making education possible for all people, universally, is a tremendously important task.
I got one answer from a dedicated female muslim, Ms. Raquel Evita Saraswati from the United States, who states in an interview in Helsingin Sanomat on February 21st 2009, that "The Koran engourages towards gender equality, but women as a group are seen as second class citizens amongst the islamists and fundamentalists, and in areas where these groups are in power, women are in great danger. Gender and sexuality are questions of life and death for muslims". Ms. Saraswati states further that all of the violent customs that a large number of women are exposed to are ways to suppres women in the name of religion.
Interesting contradiction concerning gender equality appears by viewing another headline in Helsingin Sanomat on February 14th 2009 about a female terrorist killing tens of people in Iraq. The headline of the article started with the word “Femaleterrorist”. I could not but wonder, if I have ever seen a headline “Maleterrorist”. This lead me thinking about the transparent, yet very meaningful “gender equality in terrorism” concerning acts of violence: the act has been especially meaningful, even especially brutal if the perpetrator was a women.
Is violence than more extreme when done by a woman? This particular individual of whom the article was written about had put a bomb under her clothes and exploded herself in a tent full of women and children, resting while participating in a pilgrimage. Had she been a he, they would’ve addressed him as a suisidebomber.
Islam is not the only religion that doesn't value women equally with men. There are male priests and other employees in some perishes in Finland, who refuse to work side by side with female priests. In March 2009 a few middle aged youth workers in a perish in Finland were permanently fired from their jobs because of their gender-discriminative convictions.
Back to the Taliban in the Swat valley, the fact that they so desperately want to stop girls from getting an education, is almost as if they acknowledge the fact, that giving girls and women access to education does benefit the person in question, as well as the entire community significantly. Endless efforts on making education possible for all people, universally, is a tremendously important task.
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)
