In the opinion of three legal scholars, there would have been valid grounds for suspending the parliamentary recess.
Parliamentary of the speaker Jussi Halla-ahon (ps) solution not to interrupt the recess of the parliament is problematic in many ways, say three legal scholars.
“The central idea of parliamentarism is dialogue between the government and the opposition. It is very extraordinary that the entire opposition considers it necessary to interrupt the parliamentary recess. For this reason, the request is very important and I think the speaker should have agreed to it,” says the professor of constitutional law at the University of Turku Brother Pekka Viljanen.
The Constitution and the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure provide the Speaker with broad discretion. Therefore, according to Viljanen, Halla-aho has not acted unlawfully.
According to him, from the point of view of the constitution, however, what is essential is that the parliament must be ready to meet at any time. Legislation does not set a very high threshold for interrupting the session break.
Opposition parties asked the speaker on Friday to interrupt the recess and convene the parliament, because the government has been the subject of exceptionally wide criticism both at home and abroad due to the recent racism debate.
In Halla-aho’s solution, Professor Viljanen is surprised by his statement that the parliamentary majority has not agreed to the request.
“I consider this interpretation to be special, because during majority governments, the opposition would then never have the opportunity to request the convening of the parliament during the session recess. If the interpretation is that the session break can only be interrupted when the request comes from the government, that is problematic,” says Viljanen.
Professor of Public Law Janne Salminen The University of Turku is also of the opinion that Speaker Halla-aho has not acted unlawfully.
“The principle of parliamentarism would have advocated convening the parliament. It is not appropriate for the speaker to consider the question in terms of the possible outcome of the vote of confidence by mentioning that the parliamentary majority has not agreed to the request.”
Speaker In his decision, Halla-aho appeals to the fact that, in his opinion, the matter does not compare in terms of urgency and social significance to the reasons for which the parliament has previously been convened during recess.
Professor of constitutional law at the University of Helsinki Tuomas Ojanen emphasizes that the inviolability of human dignity, equality and the prohibition of discrimination are central basic values of society. They have a significant position both in the Finnish Constitution and in the international human rights treaties that bind Finland and in EU law.
“From the point of view of the Constitution, human rights treaties and EU law, it is clear that the matter has a very large social and legal significance. For this reason, it would have been well justified to convene Finland’s primary state body, the parliament, to discuss the matter.”
Ojanen also emphasizes that Finland has an obligation to combat racism by all possible means. According to Article 22 of the Constitution, the public authority must ensure the realization of fundamental rights and human rights. The obligation also applies to individual ministers.
In its solution Halla-aho states that the opposition groups initially did not try to advance their cause by approaching the speaker directly, but rather by presenting demands regarding the speaker’s actions in both traditional and social media.
“I interpret this to mean that the purpose was to create a conflict of authority with the speaker and try to use public pressure to steer the speaker’s decision-making in the desired direction,” Halla-aho wrote in his decision.
With his statement, Halla-aho became a party to the controversy in Viljanen’s opinion, even though he should stay out of daily politics.
“The speaker’s position is emphatically neutral, which is why he cannot participate in the votes. He is protected from the tensions between the government and the opposition. That’s why I find it special that he appeals to the conflict of authority.”
Professor Ojanen also draws attention to the fact that the role of the speaker of the parliament requires general trust in the speaker’s impartiality.
“One of the basic conditions for trust is that the speaker stays away from the day’s and party politics and efforts to influence politics. In terms of these starting points, there are problematic points in the president’s press release,” Ojanen says.
#Parliament #Jurists #criticize #Speaker #Hallaaho #trampling #parliamentarism
