The headline is about something different. "Wives of Mariupol soldiers dispersed by police at Kyiv protest "
But in the article is this sentence, phrased so oddly that you might miss it.
Wives of Ukrainian soldiers under siege in Mariupol who gathered in Kyiv to demand the evacuation of their husbands have been dispersed by police who gave army conscription notices to men who joined the protest.
Police officers ordered the women at the latest protest to leave the square as the event had not been authorised and gave conscription orders to a number of men.
There it is again! Nearly the same sentence, phrased the same strange way. What’s going on?
The article has a 3rd occurrence of the word “conscription” besides the two OP quoted:
From that description I’d say it is effectively a punishment for protesting, because if they hadn’t attended they probably wouldn’t have gotten caught evading the draft.
That’s a pretty absurd statement if you ask me and we’re just stretching the meaning to fit our outrage. If you’re a wanted fugitive and attend a protest where you get caught are you being arrested for attending a protest? No, you are arrested for your past crimes at the protest.
Like I said, conscription is already in effect. Technically these men are draft dodgers and fugitives because the order to report has already been given, so yes when the military found out they were dealt with.
If you’re saying they are arrested for protesting then why aren’t the woman arrested? Are you saying that if they had their documents checked elsewhere they would’ve been send home without harm? This was gunna happen once the military checked up on them no matter what, protest or not.
Out of curiosity, when ICE agents show up at protests in the US and arrest people who will ultimately be deported, would you say that those people are also not being punished for attending a protest?
Yes.