This week we heard Anders Breivik’s closing statements in his defense for killing 77 innocent victims. In his final tirade of how multiculturalism is responsible for fuelling the Islamization of Europe, the mass killer showed no remorse.
“The attacks on July 22 were preventive attacks to defend the indigenous Norwegian people,” he said. “I therefore demand to be acquitted.”
In a recent column, Perussuomalaiset party MP Olli Immonen writes at the same time as the Breivik trial is ongoing: “…it is clear that current developments [concerning Islamization] will lead to a situation where our Western way of life in Finland and elsewhere in Europe will be threatened. The confrontation between Islamic and Western culture is one of the megatrends of this century.”
Shivers went up my spine when I read both quotes. While they convey the same message, there is a difference: Breivik went on a killing rampage while Immonen didn’t.
The Norwegian mass killer uses Islamization to justify what he did; Immonen uses the same arguments but to attract media attention and, crucial to his political career, future votes. One is being tried in a courtroom for mass murder while the other is in parliament spreading Breivik’s Counter-Jihadist views.
In many respects, the debate revolving around whether Breivik is insane or not when he carried out the killings speaks volumes about how we want to continue seeing ourselves as a people and society irrespective of 22/7.
The question is an exceptionally tough one: Are Breivik’s thoughts “sane” but what he did “insane?” In other words, is it ok to spread hatred, racism and prejudice of other groups as long as you don’t take the law in your hands and start killing people?
If Breivik were Immonen and Immonen, Breivik, the verdict would be clear: Breivik would be “sane” and Immonen “insane.”
In light of what happened, we should ask some serious questions. One of these is what kind of society do we want to live in. Is it one where we consider racism “sane” but becomes “insane” if you are a racist that murders other people? Or one where all forms of racism and prejudice by anyone or any group are unacceptable?
Shouldn’t both cases, the sane and the insane racist, be equally condemned by society?
I would be very worried if society would do something that distrurbed as starting to condemn people because of their thoughts.
And it is also very disturbing that you can’t understand the difference between a thought and an action.
Do you think society should condemn people whose “thoughts” concern sexually molesting children, planning mass murder, formulating ideas for violently overthrowing the democratic order, designing dishonest business ventures and so on?
Do your views remain the same when the projected victim is your own child, family, society and financial interests? Let’s say you find these things in your neighbour’s private diary. Do they leave you unmoved? Let’s say that you find that your neighbour also privately discussed these schemes with other, like-minded individuals. Does that seem OK to you as well?
The notion of a sharp division between the domains of thought and behaviour is also theoretically outdated.
You are an apologist!
The Norwegian mass child murderer has presented a real poser to the H̶a̶̶l̶l̶a̶-̶a̶h̶o̶l̶a̶i̶s̶e̶t̶ neofascist counter-jihadi fringe movement. If they call Breivik crazy, then they accept that their own ideology appeals to crazy people, and that there is no way to tell which of them is not similarly unbalanced. Therefore anyone who espouses such views must be kept under surveillance. If they call Breivik sane, on the other hand, then they accept that their ideology itself justifies, or at least leads sane people to commit the kind of crimes that Breivik committed, and again this means that preventive surveillance is necessary.
This is all very parallel to the situation with radical islamism.
One thing we can be sure of is that the H̶a̶̶l̶l̶a̶-̶a̶h̶o̶l̶a̶i̶s̶e̶t̶ neofascist counter-jihadi fringe movement can expect to be placed under surveillance, just as radical islamists have been, and that infiltration of their sick and twisted ranks has already begun. It’s also a safe bet that this will involve significant blackmail of male homosexuals on both sides of this conflict.
The ultimate loser in all of this is a free society, as the scope of covert surveillance grows ever wider.
Persecuting someone because of political views is bad, no matter what those views are.
All muslims are not monitored. Only the suspected radicals. A nonviolent politician cant be really called a radical as he doesnt advocate terrorism etc. I do think Breivik was sane by the time he committed bombings and the shootings.
And how is Halla-ahos ideology similiar to Breiviks? Theres no significant similarities, youre just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill to justify your own persecution of immigration critics and right-wingers. Save your crocodile tears
You have a much more liberal view of the grounds for granting political asylum than the Finnish Immigration Service.
I did not say that all Moslems are under surveillance. I said that all radical Islamists can expect to be. Similarly you can now ask yourself how many of your friends in the H̶a̶̶l̶l̶a̶-̶a̶h̶o̶l̶a̶i̶s̶e̶t̶ neofascist counter-jihadi fringe movement are watching you and contributing to a dossier with your name on it.
Incitement to violence takes many forms in politics. The famous speech of Mark Antony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is the classic overworked example.
Well, this is a clinical diagnosis that is currently sub judice, but you are suggesting that the ideas described in Breivik’s manifesto can motivate a sane person to commit mass child murder.
Breivik clearly counted the racist criminal Halal-höpö as an ally. Both subscribe to the same opinions of Islam and the Eurabia thesis. Both have the same opinions on immigration and paint the same distorted picture of multiculturalism. Both use the same crude neologisms coined in and around the Gates of Vienna forum, of which both are members. Indeed the racist criminal Halal-höpö appears to be the main populariser of the Finnish language equivalents of these expressions. There are, indeed, so many similarities that the onus must be on the racist criminal Halal-höpö to show where the ideological differences are.
For someone so obviously lacking in forbearance, the racist criminal Halal-höpö has been astonishingly quiet on this point. Where, exactly, do his views differ from those of Breivik? We have yet to learn this. Can it be that the only difference is that the racist criminal Halal-höpö lacks the courage to act on his views and instead merely incites others and tries to manipulate them from a safe distance?
I would not describe the violent deaths of 77 people, most of them children, as a molehill. Your attempt to trivialise the actions of Breivik in pursuit of a warped ideology do you no credit.
It has nothing to do with asylum granting. Yes, people are getting persecuted, we cant save the world.
So Halla-aho and his supporters can be compared to radical islamists? Tell me, how many acts of terrorism etc. have Halla-aho or his supporters done?
Yes, why not if the person has a certain mindset?
Breivik mentioned Halla-aho maybe once in his manifest, along with other immigration critics.
Not even close, Breiviks opinions on islam and immigration are far from Halla-ahos. Have you even read Breiviks manifest? They do both believe that multiculturalism is destructive to the native culture. And yeah, Gates of Vienna is a blog, Halla-aho has contributed there with 2 writings if im right. One could connect pro-immigration persons to all kinds of attrocities if he wanted, like you now connect halla-aho to Norways killings.
Do you have your own Halla-aho inside your head or what? He has commented on the Norway killings, the recent conviction and resigning.
What i called making a mountain out of a molehill was you implying that both Halla-aho and Breivik have the same ideology based on very minor connections (like halla-ahos writings on gates of vienna) and the fact they both oppose multiculturalism.
The entire H̶a̶̶l̶l̶a̶-̶a̶h̶o̶l̶a̶i̶s̶e̶t̶ neofascist counter-jihadi fringe movement are quite obviously comparable to radical Islamists. Breivik is part of this, but we have also seen terror attacks in Oulu and elsewhere by supporters of the convicted racist criminal Halal-höpö. The shooting incident by a Halal-höpö supporter in Hyvinkää is also more than a little chilling, bearing in mind that the convicted racist criminal Halal-höpö was only concerned at the impact that this might have on firearms legislation.
So surveillance is obviously necessary while the convicted racist criminal Halal-höpö continues to spread this pernicious ideology in Finland. Do you have some magic way to detect the individuals who have this “sane mindset”? If not, then how many such incidents would it take to convince you that supporters of the convicted racist criminal Halal-höpö should be placed under surveillance? Perhaps you have no children of your own.
Maybe I’m a bit slow on the uptake here, but you failed to specify even one respect in which the views of Breivik expressed in that manifesto differ from those of the convicted racist criminal Halal-höpö. One might suppose that if their views are so different, then you would be able to specify at least one difference.
And nowhere in those comments did the convicted racist criminal Halal-höpö explain exactly how his views differ from those of the Norwegian mass child murderer, who you now claim was sane and was acting in furtherance of those views. The approach so far has been to deny the obvious parallel, but not to specify any differences. The rest of us may conclude, in the words of Dirk Gently, that if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
Then show us the differences. I realise that you have to scamper off now to whatever secret place you people go to to debate such questions, so I won’t expect to see any response of real content from you here any time soon.
Those werent politically motivated attacks. Besides the Hyvinkää shooter had liked PS in facebook, not Halla-aho.
Because strictening the gun laws wont prevent gun crime. Halla-aho has always stood for gunowners rights so i dont know whats wrong with him being concerned of the impact on gun laws.
Halla-aho hasnt spread Breiviks manifest or his ideology and he already let the media know what he thinks of Breivik and his acts.
So should we put everyone who is against multiculturalism under surveillance? Should we put every christian or nationalist under surveillance?
Theres unfortunately no such way. We should also put every communist or leftist under surveillance, soon we would have everyone under surveillance.
Breivik was a militant christian extremist. Is Halla-aho that?
I dont see any reason why he should apologize for something that a norwegian terrorist did.
You know these things for a fact? Why did the Oulu murderer specifically target immigrants? Are you now trying to draw a distinction between the peruSSuomalaiset and the H̶a̶̶l̶l̶a̶-̶a̶h̶o̶l̶a̶i̶s̶e̶t̶ neofascist counter-jihadis? If you are, then please explain exactly how this works, and why the former is sheltering the latter in its ranks.
Indeed. Halal-höpö is a convicted racist criminal whose commitment to democracy is somehow consistent with the desire to see a return to brutal military rule in Greece.
But do you know why this macho macho firearms fan was discharged from military service?
I disagree, and you have not shown otherwise. It’s the same xenophobic, islamophobic message in both cases. You have not shown any difference between the political ideologies of the Norwegian mass child killer and the convicted racist criminal Halal-höpö.
Exactly, and I’m sure that the Finnish security police will draw the same conclusion and watch prominent followers of the pernicious Breivik/Halal-höpö ideology very carefully. You can expect to hear funny background sounds on your telephone now that Migrant Tales has flushed you out.
That’s a label, not a difference in political ideology. You might as well say that only one could speak Norwegian and only one could speak Finnish, that one has fair hair and the other dark, or that one has not recovered from an adolescent acne problem.
Tell us how they differ in terms of the social changes that they are trying to bring about. This would be a relevant explanation of their differences. You have not done this yet.
In fact you are deliberately avoiding this key question, because you know that I am right. There is no difference in political ideology between these two evil men.
That’s not the question, and again you are being deliberately evasive. The Norwegian mass child killer was pursuing the very same political ideology that the convicted racist criminal Halal-höpö has been seeking to popularise in Finland. You say that Breivik was sane, and that his actions were taken in pursuit of that political ideology. The only difference between Breivik and the convicted racist criminal Halal-höpö is that the latter does not have the guts required to act on his beliefs, but instead tries to incite others to do so from a safe distance.
Get your facts straight. Halla-aho was never discharged, since he never even joined army. In Finland we have freedom to choose whether or not to join.
Yes, let’s get our facts straight. The gun fanatic and convicted racist criminal Jusuf Halal-hölynpöly was discharged from military service in peacetime sometime after becoming liable for mandatory military service at the start of the year when he turned 18 years of age (1989).
This date is prior to the current Constitution of Finland, which took effect in March 2000, but even under the present Finnish Constitution there is no freedom to choose. Subsection 1 of section 127 of the Constitution Act imposes a universal national defence duty on Finnish citizens:
The details of this universal duty are well known. Women are exempt from it, as are all residents of the Åland Islands. The core group of individuals automatically liable for military service consists of adult male Finnish citizens aged under 60 years living on the Finnish mainland.
Subsection 2 of section 127 of the Constitution Act allows discharge (“vapautus”) from military service on conscientious grounds:
Discharge from military service has only ever been permitted in Finland when there were special grounds, such as the physical or mental health of the candidate, or some religious or other comparable conscientious objection.
So we return to the key question: why was this firearms fanatic discharged from military service? Was it because of a conscientious objection to the use of deadly force as a means of resolving conflict? Was it mental instability? That seems more likely.
I think we should be told.
Halla-aho hasn’t been discharged, he has completed non-military service (siviilipalvelus in Finnish) which can be done instead of military service. And by completing that the duty is served.
If someone is discharged from service, it means he doesn’t have to either military or non-military service.
Men in finland has the option to choose whether to do their duty as military or non-military service.
I explained in detail just now that access to non-military alternative service is not a free choice. It can and will be refused if the candidate has no special grounds for requesting this form of service. This was even more clearly true before the turn of the century, which is the critical time in the case of the gun fanatic and convicted racist criminal Halal-hölynpöly.
The duty of national service is imposed by subsection 1 of section 127 of the Constitution Act, and it applies in effect to all Finnish males aged between 18 and 60 years domiciled outside of the Åland Islands. The Ministry of Justice translation of this subsection reads as follows:
The option of non-military alternative service is permitted under subsection 2 of the same statute. Translation again by the Ministry of Justice:
This makes it quite clear that an individual may be discharged from the duty of military service (but not other forms of service) on conscientious grounds. Do you know what the term “discharge” (vapautus) means?
In addition to reasons of conscience, a discharge from either military or all forms of national service may also be based on other factors that are prescribed by ordinary law. Such grounds for discharge include gender and physical and mental health.
So we return to the key question: why was the gun fanatic and convicted racist criminal Jusuf Al-oho-hölynpöly discharged from the universal duty to perform military service?
Did he lie about his personal conscientious position on the use of armed force – perhaps for reasons of cowardice – or was his discharge due to a mental health issue?
I think we should be told.
Rambo with wet pants is the phrase that comes to mind when considering the position of a gun fanatic who dodges the draft.
You obviously haven’t served military service in Finland. I have in the 90’s.
You can copy-paste what ever you want but in reality it is up to person himself to choose which one to take: military or non-military. And you one refuses to do either, he will serve jail time.
The law in Finland is as I have described. You have offered nothing to indicate otherwise. From the fact that people sometimes steal from shops I cannot conclude that shoplifting is legal in Finland. If this is the limit of your legal argument, then you have no argument at all.
Clearly a dishonest person can easily lie about his views and pretend to have a conscientious objection to military service. This is the practice that you are referring to.
Times have changed and men seeking discharge from military service are no longer subject to the third degree or socially ostracised as they once were. This means that a coward can pretend to be opposed to the use of violence as a means of resolving conflict and nobody will try to pick a fight with him in the recruiting station, give him a white feather in the street, or peep through his windows to see how he treats his wife and children.
However, in the case of the convicted racist criminal and gun fanatic Jusuf Al-aho-cuckoo we are talking about someone who exercises public power in a position of public trust. Individuals who lie about their most fundamental beliefs in order to escape from their obligations are hardly fit for such office, and the public has a right to know that candidates for election are of this kind.
In other words, it is not acceptable for this man to emerge as a gun fanatic only after dodging the draft by making disingenuous declarations of conscience.
Of course, it is possible that the discharge from military service was granted for psychiatric reasons.
This is why the public has a right to know.
And you, tp1, are now rapidly earning the title of Chief Hompanzee on Migrant Tales.
No it’s not possible and you would know this if you had done your homework. Halla-aho DID complete the non-military service, therefore there is no possibility that he would have been discharged because of psychiatric reasons. And that is simply because he was NOT discharged at all. If what you imply would have happened, then Halla-aho wouldn’t even had to do the non-military service.
I know what there reads in the books of law about this matter, but in reality one doesn’t need to have a reason to do non-military service, it’s just simply a matter of choice.
There are many conditions that make a man unfit for military service but not for civil alternative service. An unhealthy fascination with gun-related violence is one obvious candidate. Didn’t the racist criminal Halal-hoodoo also fantasise about shooting a man in the head in response to an unsolicited homosexual advance? We can see how this kind of thinking might make him unsuitable for weapons training, but how would it rule him out of consideration for eleven months of civil alternative service in a photocopying room at the Ministry of Administrative Affairs?
In fact psychiatric conditions that justify discharge from all forms of national service are those that qualify the sufferer for a disability pension and withdrawal from the labour market in general.
You will find the grounds for medical discharge from military service in section 10 of the Military Service Act (no. 1438 of 2007) and the grounds for medical discharge from civil alternative service in section 26 of the Civil Alternative Service Act (no. 1446 of 2007). The conditions are not the same. Indeed if they were, then legislative economy would require a cross-reference from one Act to the other.
I should add, however, that it is far more likely that the racist criminal Halal-hoodoo dodged the draft simply by pretending to have some conscientious objection to military service, and it is this, above all, that is inconsistent with his enthusiasm for firearms.
Ah, you get your knowledge by magic directly from your Master, who cannot be wrong about matters of law because … well, because he is your Master.
This is natural and normal for a Hompanzee, but you are going to be sooo embarrassed by your views in a few years. 🙂
You are wrong also here. If person has some condition etc. which prevents him to serve military service, he is discharged and he doesn’t have to do non-military service. Nobody can be ordered to non-military service by any grounds.
Non-military service is ALWAYS as choice by the person himself and starting from year 1987 it has been enough to just inform the officials that one wants to do non-military service instead of military service.
I already pointed out that it is more likely that the racist criminal Jusuf Al-hölynpöly simply lied about his beliefs in order to dodge the draft. This is the simplest explanation, and as you point out, it’s easy to get away with such lies nowadays. Below I explain how and why this situation has developed.
However you are ignoring the realities of medical discharge, which involves periodic medical reviews. A person wishing to conceal a mental illness will inevitably find it easier to feign a conscientious objection and opt for civil alternative service than to keep returning for military psychiatric assessments, especially if that person is otherwise unemployable.
Funny how the epähiket can always be trusted to sign a form without reading it. Take a close look at the application form for civil alternative service. Up at the top, just under the space for the applicant’s personal identifying details and immediately above the space where the applicant signs the form, you will find a part of the form that has already been completed under the heading Vakuutus ja hakemus:
If you disagree with the following translation of the affirmation and application, then don’t give up your day job:
This form is processed by the Board of Conscription, which issues a formal administrative decision to discharge the applicant from military service and order the applicant to perform civil alternative service:
The Board of Conscription is nowadays much less inclined to investigate whether the applicant really does have a genuine conscientious objection, but this does not change the fact that the applicant must request discharge on grounds of conscience. This is most certainly not merely “informing the officials that one wants to do non-military service instead of military service.” A candidate who crosses out the words “Vakuutan vakaumukseen perustuvien syiden estavän minua suorittamasta asevelvollisuuslaissa säädettyä palvelusta” in the form, and instead writes “Ilmoitan, etten halua suorittaa asevelvollisuuslaissa säädettyä palvelusta” will soon be peeling spuds and mopping the floors in the guardhouse.
The modern liberal practice in relation to investigating conscientious objection merely reflects the point that the Finnish defence forces no longer investigate the grounds or sincerity of conscientious objection as they once did. Society in general also no longer frowns on individuals who refuse to do military service in the same way as it used to. As such, this indicates that we are moving towards a more gentle, consensus-led, inclusive society that does not seek out confrontation at every turn.
It is precisely because this kind of kukkahattutäti world is not welcomed by the neofascist Hompanzees that you have a fundamental problem with the conscientious objection of your gun fanatic racist criminal Master. It’s very important for the Hompanzees to pretend that their Master made a free choice and did not merely pretend to be a conscientious objector merely in order to dodge the draft, because the draft is a vestige of the kind of macho macho world that the Hompanzees wish to restore.
All very reminiscent of the efforts made to bury and hide the Fuehrer’s semitic origins.
That’s history, by the way. I don’t expect you to understand the reference.
Halla-ahos original writing goes:
“Tehtaanpuiston homon kanssa mietin hetken, että jospa hakisin yläkerrasta pyssyn ja ampuisin päähän. Olisiko siitä seuraava hekuma niin suuri, että se ylittäisi vankilareissusta seuraavan harmituksen? Väkivalta on nykyään aliarvostettu ongelmanratkaisukeino.”
Seriously, can you stop lying and flinging shit for once?
Thank you for searching your Holy Scripta and locating this remark from your Master, even though the latter has removed it from the Authorised Version and the Hompanzees have been keen to burn every last copy.
In many ways the most interesting thing about this comment from the convicted racist criminal Allo-loonie is that he should choose to dwell on this murderous idea and then write about it in a public forum. Like that famous remark referring to Timo Soini as a hyysääjän##kerinkull*nlutkuttaja, this is something that the convicted racist criminal Alla-hoho later saw fit to erase from his blog on realising that it provided just a little too much insight into his own true mentality.
That reminds me of the joke about Jones. That Welsh guy who was named after something he only did once 😉
Some revelations are, as they say, very revealing.
I don’t know whether the remark that you found for us has been translated into English before, but here is my feeble and doubtless blasphemous attempt to translate your Holy Scripta:
What’s that line from Douglas Adams?
I mean, seriously, this criminal fruitcake is your hero?
😯 Freekin’ hell! What a nut-job!
One of the funniest and most veracious things I’ve read on here! lol
the haircut is the difference….
“I briefly considered”
He briefly thought about that in his anger, not considered it as an option.
Leaving aside the source and proportionality of that anger, just for a moment, you might consider why the convicted racist criminal then chose to write about this incident in a public blog and in such extraordinary language, describing the feeling of blowing a person’s brains out in terms of sexual release.
You might also think about the precise nature of that characterisation of Timo Soini. Why coin that particular expression?
If these remarks are so innocent, then why has the convicted racist criminal Alla-loopie deleted them from his blog, and why are the Hompanzees so keen to erase them and attempt to defuse them?
Clear echoes of Döllersheim.
Wow…you seriously should be sued for defamation for writing stuff like this.
–Wow…you seriously should be sued for defamation for writing stuff like this.
Lyra, answer this question: Why is what Breivik and Immonen says so similar? What does this tell you about the two? Is it that they are both hardline Counter Jihadists?
Stuff like what, Lyra? You haven’t made a concrete reference to anything, let alone demonstrated any grounds for defamation.
Well, whats wrong with that he wrote about it? I would feel anger too if a homosexual repeatedly demanded to have oral sex with me. A part of people would propably use violence.
Halla-aho responded sarcastically (this is what you wanted to hear) to the guy who criticized Soini of not taking action on immigration/gypsy beggar matters.
Because some people have taken it as their personal mission to get offended from everything Halla-aho has said/written.
Some clarifying questions:
1) Is it consistent with the alleged “brief consideration” to take time and effort in a public forum to describe such an incident and the associated emotional response in detail? Please bear in mind as you answer that there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to indicate that the incident ever happened at all. All we have is the writer’s pornographic account.
2) Why would you feel angry in such a situation? The world is full of advertising, which is nothing more than the art of making repeated requests. Does advertising make you feel angry? Repeated requests are the most common form of persuasion. Do you lash out when anyone tries to persuade you?
3) Would you say that these “people who would probably use violence” are reacting proportionately to the situation?
4) Would you consider it normal to derive intense sexual gratification from the use of extreme and lethal violence in such a situation?
My own opinion is that these blog entries provide considerable insight into the emotional reality of this convicted racist criminal with a firearms fixation.
We have, as you obviously realise, previously discussed the point that the claim of “sarcasm” is merely an ex post-facto excuse used by the Hompanzees to evade responsibility for outrageous remarks that backfire politically. This point still stands. There is absolutely no indication of sarcasm in the remark itself.
More particularly, and to return to the original question, why coin this highly specific and extremely graphic non-dictionary expression? This is a carefully crafted expression that alludes to both skin colour and homosexuality in a manner that is certainly neither accidental nor casual.
This excuse cuts too broadly. By this reasoning, the convicted racist criminal Lala-hoho should take down the whole of his Holy Scripta, not just a few isolated remarks. What makes these particular remarks worthy of self-censorship?
That still leaves the door open to interpret word “vakaumus” how you like. Some person might even be a gun maniac and still have a “conviction” (not sure if this is good translation for “vakaumus”) against military service.
Therefore it’s not lying if you sign that form.
And that is not even a point. You just try to twist this somehow that Halla-aho would have been dishonest. The truth is that he didn’t go because he didn’t want to go. Many people think like that because military service is just a waste of time. Trust me, I’ve done it and I know. Complete waste of time. And all us who have done it knows, it’s just a question whether or not one want’s to do military or civil alternative. The piece of paper is just bureaucracy.
As marvellously satirised in Alice in Wonderland:
As I have remarked at various times before, you don’t even have to accept modus tollens as a rule of inference.
However, this is not about interpreting words “how you like”. The legal meaning of the affirmation is completely unambiguous in the Constitution, in the specific Act of Parliament that implements that constitutional principle, and in the solemn affirmation that is preprinted on the form. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and signing that form is an objective act in law. It does not matter what private, deviant “interpretation of words” the candidate may have. The form constitutes an objective claim that the candidate has a certain state of conscience that prevents military service. Now what would that state of conscience be in the case of your gun fanatic neofascist Master, who boasted about being a proud Aryan, fantasised about whipping nigger slaves and reaching orgasm by blowing someone’s brains out in the street, and claimed that violence is an under-rated way of solving problems?
In the less enlightened Golden Age that the PS would like to restore it was not enough to sign a form and then claim later that you were too dumb to know what it said. If they were not executed, conscientious objectors could at least expect to suffer varying degrees of pressure and tests of their resolve. The fact that we don’t do that anymore highlights the importance of civic duty and honesty in transactions with public authorities. Your Master failed on that score.
As explained above, any “interpretation” would amount to reformulating the affirmation itself. If the candidate does this honestly, then he can expect to be drafted directly into a punishment detail for refusing to obey military orders. It is irrelevant that your Master chose to “reinterpret the form” covertly and therefore dishonestly. He is still a coward and a liar.
Your last paragraph amplifies the point about dishonesty. If your Master signed the form “because it’s a waste of time” or for any other reason than a genuine conscientious objection, then he was simply being dishonest (and showing gross disrespect for the law and the Constitution in doing so). Par for the course for a convicted racist criminal, I suppose.
I can tell that this really burns you up, just as it burns up all of the faithful Hompanzees. It’s a form of religious devotion for you. Perhaps if I push you hard enough you will begin to understand by extension why your Master’s remarks about Islam were so offensive.
If that is the case, then over 90% of the people in Finland who do the civil service instead, are dishonest liars 🙂
I know that you understand the law better than me and I admit that you are correct. But I am trying to give the viewpoint on how this works in reality.
Therefore I see it futile to continue arguing about this, because we both know the facts, we just want to present them from different points of view.
You could be right, and I suspect that the armed forces also realise that there is nothing to be gained from drafting such people anyway.
I have met a fair number of sivareita working in government offices, and in all but one case they were politically active in precisely the organisations that you might expect on the basis of their moral convictions. The odd case was a former refugee who confided in me that he wanted to make a contribution, but he had “already seen enough guns and soldiers for one lifetime”. I found it difficult to fault this reasoning or the sentiment behind it, but strictly speaking this was a dishonest affirmation made for honest reasons.
With the convicted racist criminal Allo-haha the draft dodging is consistent with a generally manipulative personality.