The million-dollar question after the Perussuomalaiset (PS) party’s historic election victory was what kind of party had entered the Finnish political stage. After over a year in parliament and numerous scandals that have rocked the PS, a question still begs an answer: Who are they?
If you seek an answer directly from the party, the response you’ll likely get is as convoluted as the PS itself. Great lengths will be taken to point out what they’re not.
This shouldn’t surprise us considering that the PS’ political fuel comes from near-constant whining and scapegoating.
The historic election success of the PS was by and large based on hit-and-run tactics like scapegoating and denial.
Irrespective of its hodgepodge nature, how is it possible for a far-right politician like PS MP Jussi Halla-aho and party chairman Timo Soini to sit at the same table? What unites both men ideologically?
Would it be fair to call the PS an opportunistic right-wing populist party with a heavy dash of far-right nationalism? Would the best description of the party be: anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-gay, and anti-minority rights?
If we look at close political relatives of the PS in the Nordic region, we’d find the Islamophobic Danish People’s Party, Sweden Democrats, and Progress Party of Norway.
All of them are anti-EU, anti-immigration and especially anti-Islam.
The PS’ only MEP, Sampo Terho, is a member of the eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) parliamentary group. The biggest number of EFD MEPs come from the UK Independence Party (10), which wants the UK to exit the EU, and the xenophobic Lega Nord (9), which considers southern Italy a part of North Africa.
Even if the PS wants to tone down its right-wing conservative radicalism because it doesn’t sit well with moderate Finnish voters, it’s fair to claim that they are an anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti gay, and anti-minority rights party.
- The PS are an anti-EU party because 100% of PS MPs don’t want Finland to bailout any EU country. Some even believe that the Finland should exit the EU.
- They are an anti-immigration party because 97% of the MPs don’t want anymore immigrants to move to Finland. If Finland must accept immigrants, they should be white Christians.
- The PS is an anti-Islam party because MPs like Olli Immonen and James Hirvisaari, among others, believe that it’s only a matter of time when Europe will be taken over by Islam (Eurabia).
- They are an anti-gay party because 82% are against same-sex marriages.
Conclusion: The PS are an anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-gay and anti-minority rights party with ties to the far right.
It’s pretty strong to claim that whole party is anti-islam if you use just 2 MP’s as an example. That is just the generalisation that you say you are so against. It just similar as claiming that all persons of nationality X get drunk and stab people because there have been several members of X who have got drunk and stabbed people.
Also your logic fails in that later statement. Being against same sex marriage doesn’t mean being against gays.
This lying crook Olli Immonen claims that Immigration has caused so much problem that he had to step in to the parliament. Don’t Finnish people see and understand that they’ve elected to the parliament oppurtunistic criminals who just want to get in higher position in the easiest way as possible. I now Mika Niikko personally, he’s a criminal and a drug user in his previouse live and this man is now trying to represent the Finnish people Hah!
This collection has survived despite all takedown efforts by the Hompanzees.
– Ran over a pedestrian on a zebra crossing while driving a stolen car
– Handbag thefts
– Credit card fraud (sentenced to prison term)
– Unlawful operation of working machinery stolen by a friend on a construction site
Now a Member of Parliament representing… you guessed it.
Now you intentionally spread false information. Niikko got probation, he was never sentenced to prison.
And you know this, so doing that kind of misleading translation must be intentional.
tp1
The source text was luottokorttipetoksia (vankeusrangaistus)
How would you translate that?
The expression vankeusrangaistus is standardly translated as imprisonment. This is the only equivalent given in Joutsen’s Lakikielen sanakirja (WSOY 2005). Like all criminal sanctions, imprisonment is always issued by sentencing, and by nature it must always be measured as a term (i.e. a length of time), so “sentenced to prison term” seems fair enough. The source does not specify whether or not the sentence was suspended (“ehdollinen vankeusrangaistus” = “sentenced to suspended prison term”), nor is this relevant from the point of view of assessing the moral character of this pervosuomalaiset MP.
There are many reasons why a sentence of imprisonment may be suspended. One of the most obvious is that the offender has already spent so long on remand that he or she would already be eligible for parole. Another is to enable the offender to seek treatment for some condition such as habitual substance abuse. If you have more details about the offence in this case and the grounds for suspending the sentence, then perhaps we can discuss them here.
Luottokorttipetoksia is plural, suggesting more than one offence. Nothing of importance is lost by characterising the sentence as a collective singular, however.
Regardless of what type of crime he was convicted of he’s still an example and a representee, he shouldn’t be this type of person who has severe crime history. This guy and many other P.S MP members can’t be trusted because they’re ex convicts and not a type of person to trust, he used to be a thug so, how do you know he isn’t a thug now? you seem to be defending but not paying much attention to his crime history.
D4R, there are similar convicted criminals also in other parties as MP’s, so Perussuomalaiset are no different from them.
Why are you only concerned about Perussuomalaiset who have criminal history, but not about Kokoomus, Keskusta, etc. parties who also have MP’s with criminal history?
Ok then. Do you mind if a convicted murderer replaces Soini after he retires? if no then why not? in your reasoning if there are convicts in other parties, P’S members have a pass right?
Nearly a quarter of the pervosuomalaiset MPs are known to have some kind of criminal history.
How do you feel about criminals, Farang? Would you vote for one?
It depends on what the crime was.
Person like Niikko, I would never vote.
Person who have killed someone, I would never vote.
Person who have committed physical violence, I would never vote
Person like Halla-aho, yes.
tp1
That response says a great deal about you. You would vote for Himmler and Eichmann, but not for anyone “who has committed physical violence”.
This is the same Farang who claimed to “hate criminals” and insisted “the crime is always to be condemned”. It seems that you make an exception for your convicted racist criminal Master.
The indications are that only cowardice prevents your Master from behaving violently, as we have discussed before. This is someone who openly discussed whether the orgasm that he would enjoy by violently murdering a homosexual would be worth the resulting jail sentence. Perhaps we should not be surprised that you consider such an obviously sick individual worthy of your vote.
Conservative party is the black sheep in Finland
–Conservative party is the black sheep in Finland
If you look at recent polls, Kokoomus (National Coalition Party) is the biggest in Finland.
-most Europeans seems too be anti-Eu these days
– you do not have to be a priest to say no thanks to church weddings for gays. Gays can well live together without marrying
– you do not have to be a priest to say no thanks to church weddings for gays. Gays can well live together without marrying
That response comes from a heterosexual, right?
Mikki
That’s not what the polls say.
Red herring alert!
The question of same sex marriage is only an issue for established churches that have a statutory duty to solemnise marriages. A church is free to disestablish or to seek the repeal of any such statutory duty.
There is no general statutory right to marry in the church of the local parish in Finland. For one thing, at least one party to an Evangelical-Lutheran Church wedding in Finland must be a confirmed member of that church.
The common right to a church wedding regardless of church membership exists in the UK, for example, as a direct consequence of the established status of the Anglican Church. This has led to questions concerning the right of Anglican clergy to decline associated duties on grounds of conscientious objection.
The general debate on same sex marriage in Finland has nothing to do with church weddings as such. It primarily concerns civil ceremonies at register offices.
the big bishops say this and with good arguments. It is a very strategic question.
Why do you think gay marriages should be allowed in church?
–Why do you think gay marriages should be allowed in church?
If you are religious, the affirmation that we “are all God’s children” is enough proof.
well, aren’t we all? But why should the church go against its own traditions, opinions and fundamentals? makes no sense
–well, aren’t we all? But why should the church go against its own traditions, opinions and fundamentals? makes no sense
Cultures and religions change constantly. They adapt to new circumstances. That is the magic of how time works.
The changes have to come from inside, not enforced from outside.
–The changes have to come from inside, not enforced from outside.
We should all respect the law and our values. Racism, social exclusion and victimization of groups are not values we encourage in our society.
sure, but as stated I believe that marriage is between man and woman. They together are reproducers of the human being and therefore it’s vital to keep it this way.
I thought differently before but the head of the English or Anglian church said that homosexuality (marriage) is the biggest threat to the future developement of the church.
However, not belonging to church nor caring too much what is happening during my lifetime it is a signal for the future and securing it.
Mikki
Well, plenty of people get married even though there is no question of having children. Would you deny this to all women who are postmenopausal or otherwise barren, for example by reason of hysterectomy? Would you deny it to men who are unable to sire children?
Some married people also change their gender. Would you seek to void their marriages on this basis?
If you knew anything at all about the Church of England, then you would know that its head is the reigning monarch, and I’m dead certain that QEII has said precisely nothing on this subject.
I assume that you meant the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who has held this position since February 2003. Williams’ remarks on the gay marriage issue must in any case be understood in the context of the CofE as an established church, but I’m fairly sure that your quotation, if even genuine, is taken wildly out of context.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Spain since July 2005.
tp1
Too bad you can’t apply this reasoning to ethnic and cultural minority communities.
Do you have a problem reasoning or are you just acting dense? Those people obiviously took part in the killing of innocent people.
How? They espoused an ideology that denied human dignity and they engaged in hate speech, but neither personally committed any act of violence (unless you count Himmler’s suicide as such).
Very much in the style of the convicted racist criminal draft dodger Lola-haha, in fact. Stand at a safe distance and get others to do the dirty work. Then pretend you had no part in it. Lie if you have to. As long as there’s no actual blood on your hands, then you can count on the vote of tp1 and similar easily led fools, because hate speech isn’t a real crime, is it?
Or perhaps you simply mis-spelled obliviously.
2001 in Holland and 2003 in Belgium. I like Spain anyway.
It is genuine and far from straightforward issue. I was not talking about children. Church-weddings plainly.
I guess neither you nor me are bishops so we stay with the truth of Mr Williams, right?
Biggest threat for 500 years he stated.
Mikki
So when you referred above to “reproducers of the human being”, you were talking about vegetative propagation?
Now you seem to be referring to the CofE response to a recent UK government consultation. This pointed to certain difficulties that arise from the constitutional status of the CofE as an established church, as I intimated above. The “threat” in question is a threat to that establishment, but is hardly a serious one unless you subscribe to the view that the CofE has somehow managed to monopolise the institution of marriage (in which case Evangelical-Lutheran marriages are not valid, for example). Indeed the same sex marriage question pales to insignificance by comparison with the problems that arise because the sovereign is nowadays free to marry a Roman Catholic.
In any case, none of this is of the slightest relevance to Finland.
-Neither church in Finland nor England accepts gay-wedding
-both churches are Christian
-the reproducing matter was your invention not the man-woman thing I spoke about
-in contrary to your guess both have high significance for the potential future church-weddings in Fin and Eng
Mikki
So what? We are talking about civil ceremonies. A constitutional issue arises in England only because local parish churches are required to provide premises and officials for the general public. This is a consequence of the established status of the CofE. The solution is either to amend the legal duties of CofE parishes in this respect or to disestablish the CofE. There is no such issue for the Evangelical-Luthern Church of Finland, as local Lutheran parishes have no duty to marry the general population.
You are hannu/eihannu/Duunari/mmimimi and I claim my £5. Here is what you said:
You have yet to respond cogently on the point that many couples marry without the slightest prospect of “reproducing”, or to state your position on the marital status of transgender spouses.
None of this has anything to do with civil marriage ceremonies conducted by registrars and other licenced officials in register offices and other unconsecrated venues.
I wonder how far your enthusiasm for ecclesiastical influence extends beyond the narrowly homophobic agenda. If the church gets to determine who may or may not marry, then why should it not also get to determine whether shops and other businesses may open on Sundays, whether stem cell research, contraception and abortion are legal in Finland, whether gambling or secular education are permitted, whether banks should be permitted to lend money at interest and so on?
Somehow I am not surprised that you can twist something like that. If I say I wouldn’t vote for someone who has done physical violence, your opinion is that it equals for giving a vote for Himmler & co.
And for the record, I don’t consider anything that Halla-aho has said a crime. It’s a disgust for justice system that people are convicted of writing or saying something.
It tells something about you that you claim that people who say or write are cowards because they don’t start to kill people. What kind of sick way of thinking is that? Do you really think that if someone opposes something, it equals that he wants to kill them but doesn’t do that only because he is a coward?
tp1
Accusing the reader of misunderstanding what you said? Gasp! You’ve never tried that before Farang.
It was quite clear that you exalt your convicted racist criminal Master simply because he merely incites others to do things that he lacks the courage to do in person. That is Himmler and Eichmann precisely. We even have your Master on record stating that the only thing preventing him from committing an act of extreme violence against a homosexual was fear of the criminal consequences. It is also clear that your Master lied about his moral convictions in order to dodge the draft. It’s a story of cowardice at every turn, Farang.
This shows that you lack respect for the law. Why am I not surprised? You have had at least two comments on Migrant Tales deleted by a moderator because they constituted ethnic agitation. It’s hardly surprising that your comments here are subject to premoderation. Everyone can see what your real agenda is, Farang.
You will discover the limits of free expression not only if you shout “bomb” in a crowded airport, but also if you libel an individual or group. Your lack of respect for this law has obviously put you on a watch list.
Read what your racist criminal Master wrote again. The only thing that prevented him from getting an orgasm by blowing somebody’s brains out in the street was the fear of criminal law consequences. Not that such conduct would be morally wrong, but merely that it would lead to inconvenient repercussions for your Master personally. That discloses an extraordinary degree of moral depravity, coming from someone who denies that there is any such thing as human dignity, who envisioned himself as a negro slave driver “proud of his aryan character”, and who declared a serious ambition to open a pornography business.
This is the person who gets your vote. That tells us everything we need to know about you, Farang.
Now youre just acting stupid. Are you frustrated?
So you also oppose pornography, why dont you go tell that to people who run those shops? Also i dont see anything wrong in being proud of your heritage.
Jssk, I respect a lot what JusticeDemon writes. For a matter of fact, I consider his take on the present situation in Finland right on the mark.
Since he grew up in the UK and I in the US, these are two societies that have gone past their ethnic issues to such a degree that sensible people grasp that racism is a social ill. It’s something to be ashamed of and must be discouraged.
We haven’t reached that stage yet in Finland but we’re getting there.
Jssk
You will recall that we already discussed one particular example of hahaa-lol pornography. You didn’t object to my earlier translation:
You thought that this remark was unobjectionable, and you explained that you would also “feel anger” in a corresponding situation, though you didn’t explain why and you declined to comment on whether a feeling of orgasmic release is a healthy concomitant to the expression of this anger in an act of extreme violence. You also explained that your convicted racist criminal Master had removed this comment from his blog “because some people have taken it as their personal mission to get offended from everything Halla-aho has said/written”, but you were unable to explain why he had then failed to take down the whole of the Hompanzee Holy Scripta.
Your Master’s serious ambition to start a pornography business is well documented. Hardly a surprising career choice for someone who is so dismissive of the concept of human dignity.
Let’s make sure that we are on the same page here. Your Master said the following:
I assume that you don’t object if I render this (charitably) as follows:
Are you proud of your slave driving “heritage” in this way?