Finland's parliamentary ombudsman has ruled that a female reservist faced discrimination when the Defense Forces barred her from military refresher training due to pregnancy. Petri Jääskeläinen stated that special treatment of women because of pregnancy or childbirth is only permitted for protective reasons and should not lead to discrimination.
The case involved a reservist who was scheduled to participate in autumn training with the Kainuu Brigade last year. She was pregnant at the time but wanted to attend the exercises. Her role was primarily office-based work rather than physical tasks.
Jääskeläinen noted that while pregnant women are typically exempted from training, the law allows for exceptions when a medical examination confirms service capability. The training commander had initially approved special arrangements to accommodate her participation.
However, Defense Forces officials later reversed this decision, citing pregnancy as an absolute barrier. The woman received conflicting messages from different departments within the military administration.
The ombudsman criticized the Defense Forces for inconsistent communication and for failing to provide the name and contact information of the military lawyer who made the final decision, as required by law.
The reservist argued that her treatment was discriminatory, especially since she knew of other pregnant women who had been allowed to participate in similar training. However, investigators found no evidence to support this claim.
Training officials had initially arranged indoor accommodation with washing facilities for the woman. They also noted her role wouldn't expose her to gunfire noise or significant physical strain.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in balancing protective measures with equal treatment in military service. The Defense Forces described this as their first such case and lacked comparative data from previous situations.
Military officials expressed concerns about ensuring service safety for pregnant reservists. They argued that participation couldn't always be guaranteed safely from a service security perspective.
Ultimately, the woman sought exemption due to an adenovirus outbreak at the garrison, though she maintained the pregnancy-based exclusion was discriminatory.
Jääskeläinen emphasized that Parliament had specifically removed absolute provisions barring pregnant women from voluntary military service during legislative discussions about women's conscription.
The ombudsman concluded that the woman's opportunities to participate and her service capability should have been properly assessed, as the training commander had initially intended.
This case reveals how well-intentioned protective policies can sometimes cross into discriminatory territory when applied without individual assessment.