(Written 18th of February, 2003)
- Constitution is the corner stone of all legislation. No other law, can be in conflict, with our constitution. Also the constitution keeps inside the enactments of our state form, the basic rights of the Finnish citizen and the relationship between different offices of our government. The current constitution became valid on 1st of March, 2000 and there is twelve chapters inside of it. If we start to look these twelve chapters little closer, we can find a lot of things from them, that cause a quite many things to consider.
- Especially the second chapter in very conflicting. The second chapter talks about the rights of an individual in our society, but how many of these rights come true? If we start think this chapter from the most slightest end, in other words from the fact, that our state and the local authorities are suppose to provide us a living conditions that are worthy of a human being, when our own forces are starting to get weak. This is a great principle, isn't it? It just doesn't come true in many cases. You will only need to look any of the old people's home that are reserved for ordinary people, psychiatric ward or a ward in health center, to tell me that does this great principle really come true? Old people are practically tied to their beds, with medicines and diapers. Even if the person is capable of going to the bathroom, he or she is dressed in diapers, because the nurses don't have enough time to escort everybody to the bathroom. Is this a condition, worthy of a human being, that our constitution keeps talking so highly about? How about mentally ill people, who are tied down or isolated, even longer than our law permits the nurses to do so? Could this be the condition, worthy of a human being, mentioned in our constitution? I could mention as an example, that in Italy, there hasn't been psychiatric hospitals for over twenty years and they seem to be doing fine without these kind of institutions. Apparently, Finnish people how ever, are so sick in their minds, that we do need these kind of hospitals and we just need to learn, how to forget this part in our constitution.
- Other than this, the second chapter talks about the essence of democracy. Meaning the right of assembly. So here in Finland, we are suppose to have this kind of right? In practice you are forced to inform the police, that can deny the right of having a demonstration or other large mass meetings, if they see it fit. Personally I don't understand this. Right of assembly is the essence of democracy. Without this right, there wouldn't be a democracy at all. Free press is also mentioned in the second chapter. Surprisingly it's also neither here nor there, when it comes to the fact, that does this right come true in our country. It hasn't been that many months, that I couldn't remember the decision of our judicial system, that forbid the magazines to write about one woman, who apparently was so hurt by this expression of democracy.
- In chapter three, is mention the fact that member of Parliament must not be stopped to carry out his or her official duties and how the member of Parliament should be elected. How ever, I think it would be wise to include to the constitution, that what things, are thought to be official duties of a member of Parliament? During the last independency day, I kept wondering, that is coffee drinking or taking stronger liquids, associating with other people, an official duty for the member of Parliament? I saw how one member from the Parliament, kept of crying in the TV, how his taxi was stopped on the way to the presidential residence. He was going to the independency celebration and he thought that partying and dancing is an official duty. Well, I can understand how upset he must have been, when other people were there first and toke all of the cherries, impregnated with alcohol, from the punch bowl.
- The fifth chapter talks about electing the president and prime minister. This chapter keeps many things inside, that are completely new and baffling to me. I have always thought that, when a person comes as a refugee to Finland and later gets the Finnish citizenship, he will have all the same rights and obligations, as the rest of the Finnish people. To my surprise, this is not the fact after all. Even if the person has come to Finland, as a small baby and has gotten the Finnish citizenship, decades ago, surprisingly he or she can't be elected as a president. So there goes the equal society that is advertised everywhere. Clearly there is the group A, where the people born in Finland belong to and then there is the group B, that covers other people, not born in Finland. How ever, this fact is not mentioned at all in public. I do understand, that if a person has come to Finland, like five years ago and has lived decades in some other country, he or she can't be elected, because he or she might not have all the knowledge of the Finnish society. But how can you justify the fact, that a person who has come to Finland, decades ago as a small baby and has now lived in Finland for twenty or thirty years, can't be elected as a president? This is the most baffling part of our constitution. Probably because, this is never mentioned in anywhere. Good question is, that why is not this fact mentioned, when they talk about constitution?
|
|
|
