OlmWeb

When I was a conscript in the Finnish Defence Forces (FDF) I was assigned to a magazine called Fanb�raren (Flag Carrier) as an editor and journalist. It’s the PR magazine For Nylands Brigade which has a circulation of 4000 copies and read by many more including a lot of people abriad, also often commented on by larger newspapers. The theme for the latest issue was safety and one assignment, among others, was to write an article where ordinary privates and NCOs (Non Commissioned Officers / corporals / petty officer 3^rd class in the navy (editor’s note)) would speak out about what they thought about the safety at Nylands Brigad.

My boss, the director for the magazine, wanted to see in which direction I was going with the article and I showed him my first draft. I was very surprised when he and the brigade commander for censored the whole thing.

When you read this text I want you to remember two things. First, this text was originally written in Swedish and translated by myself to English. And since English is not my mother tongue it�s impossible to write as good as I do in Swedish. I try to stay accurate with the terminology but the fact is that this text will never be as accurate as the Swedish one. However, the message and the points in this text are true to the original. If there’s any Swedish speaking people out there who’ve read both text and disagree, please comment it! (L�s utkastet av artikeln p� svenska h�r!)

Second, I must point out that this is only the first draft of this text - a very raw and unpolished version. The director wanted to see in which direction I was going with this article so I quickly had to write a first draft. I personally believe that the text still needs work and that I have in no way covered all the angles of the issue with these short lines.

With this intro I want to give as much background information as possible and to point out under which circumstances and using what standards this text was written. I’m sure many of you real journalists out there think I was an idiot not to finish the story before I gave it to the sdirector - but you must please remember that this was the military and that I was under orders.

So here we go - this is the text that was to sensitive for the FDF to publish:

(No full names are published in this article for privacy reasons.)

In the two previous articles we talk about safety rules and what they should mean. Now it’s time for the conscripts to speak out about what reality is like.

Most people can probably agree on the fact that a military installation needsd tight rules and regulations to make everything work, and so that nobody will get hurt.

- It’s very important that the safety rules exist but very few actually know what they mean, says private T..

- They are perhaps a little too tight at times, says private E., which means that they are not always very carefully followed.

- I think tight rules are good, says corporal K. I believe it prevents accidents from happening more effectively than having looser rules.

When the safety rules are not followed it will most certainly lead to dangerous situations of different kinds. Sometimes, it’s just as private E. puts it the tightness of the rules themselves which makes them difficult if not impossible to follow to the letter. But more often it’s the rush, fatigue or common human error or a combination of these that lead to accidents. It’s also both the soldiers and the senior staff that make the errors.

At private T.’s first camp there was among other things carelessness with the recoil amplifiers which are used when firing blanks. The recoil amplifier is mounted on the edge of the barrel and stops the blank from coming shooting out from the rifle. Without this recoil amplifier even loose blanks can become deadly.

- At our first camp one guy shot blanks without a recoil amplifier private T. tells me. I think it was broke or had just come loose. The NCOs did not check the recoil amplifiers before the exercise was to begin even though they should have. Instead the newly promoted privates were given charge of this crucial safety step themselves and obviously they also failed to check them properly.

This is a case when all parties present played Russian roulette with safety and it is in a way difficult to point fingers at anyone specific. But at the end of the day, especially in the case of an accident the most senior officer always carry responsibility.

But that�s not all.

- At the firing range someone accidentally fired a live round. And it was not going for the target area, says private. E. The safety had not been on.

Last spring another accident took place at the firing range when the drill instructor ordered the cadets to open fire towards the target area although there still was a cadet at the area. The critical mistake was almost immediately discovered by the cadets themselves and the exercise was terminated. No one was hurt - but it was a close one. After this accident, many soldiers at the brigade were very upset about the poor flow of information. Most soldiers heard about this trough the grapevine or had to read about it from the newspapers. They got no official information what so ever.

These stories make it seem like there’s a lot of negligence going on, especially in conjunction with firearms. But in fact, the firing range is where the book is followed the closest to the letter. The reason for most accidents is only human error which will always happen no matter how tight regulations you have.

The story goes on about issues with the health system at Dragsvik. That portion of the text, however was not censored in any way. On the contrary it lead to a whole new article called “Sjukskrivningar p� gott och ont” (Fanb�raren 3/06 5.10.2006) which translates into “Reporting sick for better or worse”.

So why was this story censored, one might wonder. The most obvious answer is of course the contents of the story itself and what it�s getting at � that someone might not be doing his job right. But that�s not the only reason. As it turns out, this kind of carelessness with the recoil amplifiers is a very serious official misconduct and the brigade commander was not at all happy with what he read. His opinion was that accidents like these must be investigated internally so that the media and public can have access to official reports and records. He thought printing this kind of stuff in Fanb�raren first would not send the right signals to the readers and the public.

The my boss agreed and I� well I had to, because there was nothing I could do about it. This was my assignment and if they were afraid of the truth they should not have asked me to do this story in the first place. This is yet another example of when the real truth suddenly becomes the wrong kind of truth. This, more than anything, made me realize once and for all that Fanb�raren is and always has been nothing more than a PR propaganda magazine for Finnish war veterans, FDF staff, and other war crazy people who want to read and think about the FDF and especially Nylands Brigade in a certain way.

The article being censored is not really the issue here. The bigger picture is what saddens me�

I had hoped that we in Finland now live in a time where we are not afraid to talk about the truth. If the truth is shocking it the problem should be dealt with � fixed. Not hidden or denied. But sadly this is not the case. There are still some things that one is not allowed to speak about. In Finland it is political suicide to openly criticize the military and create a debate about it. I�m not saying the people working for the FDF are incompetent or careless. No way. Most military personnel are very dedicated and good at what they do. It�s just a fact that they and the conscript are toying with some very dangerous stuff and we should really think about safety.

The Finnish nation and the FDF are borrowing 6, 9 or 12 months from every young Finnish man�s life. I think the least they can ask in return is that their safety is guaranteed and that they will come home to their family and girlfriends alive.