Abagond: What this blog has taught me about white people

by , under Migrant Tales

Comment: Abagond is a very successful blog that debates issues like racism in the United States. We at Migrant Tales like to ask serious question about such a social ill as well. What about if we asked that same question as Abagond did in the headline? 

For me personally, Migrant Tales has taught me that racism is a problem that should be challenged in Finland. Our blog has helped expose as well the outright lies of anti-immigration groups like the Perussuomalaiset. Most importantly, it has inspired a lot of people to challenge one of the worst menaces threatening our society today: prejudice, nationalism, xenophobia, far-right ideology and racism. 

___________

Keeping this blog has blown my mind. White people say stuff here that they would never  say offline in my hearing. I knew white Americanswere racist – living in so-called liberal New York left no doubt in my mind about that – but I had no idea how deep their racism ran.

Read original blog entry here.

 

  1. jennins

    I would rather consider the rethorics Mark, Justice demon & co are presenting here as hate speech, not racism.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –I would rather consider the rethorics Mark, Justice demon & co are presenting here as hate speech, not racism.

      So, jennins, why are you so worried about what other people face if you doubt what they say? Is there anything wrong with talking about racism and prejudice? Why are you bothered by it?

  2. Mark

    Jennins

    Hate speech? And not racism. Look maybe i have you wrong, but are you saying that we are not racists, just pushing hate speech, or are you saying that what we are facing is hate speech rather than racism?

    Your comment was rather vague – I suppose you meant to say something useful!

  3. jennins

    if something is unbelievable as sugested in the headline it is your comments Mark. Perhaps also outragous or mindblowing as suggested.

    • Mark

      Jennine

      So, you came here to insult us with empty words. What a dick!

  4. jennins

    Here, is this your home Mark? Your porch?

    Halla-aho was insulted by Yle and decided to use a newspaper’s arguments to replicate them into another issue. An issue which facts were not disputed by the Supreme court but the way of communicating was inappropriate.

    Mark and perhaps everybody writing here seem to think that the insults can be done only one way. You are free to subscribe to this philosophy, nobody blames you.

    • JusticeDemon

      the way of communicating was inappropriate.

      Not inappropriate, but criminal.

      Halal–höpö has been fined for committing a crime, not merely speaking out of turn. Two crimes, to be precise.

      These are real crimes with real victims. No amount of trying to play clever with “is it legal to say X?”, or “I’m only repeating what someone else got away with”, or “isn’t the prosecutor the real criminal?” or other such bullshit arguments changes the fact that Halal–höpö and his cronies are trying to make Finland unsafe for minorities.

      Halal–höpö is just another criminal in a gang that has become the last refuge of criminals with political aspirations. The rap sheet grows longer every month.

    • D4R

      We’re Migrant Tale are not here to insult but to address racist people and racism, rcism is a social illness wich needs to be adressed, it’s like a virus and tends to spread fast, Halla Aho gained his status by being racist and fishing racist Finns votes and now he’s conficted and in a position where no confict can run, so i don’t really understand your reason of attacking us when you really should attack those who’re in the parliament spreading fascim, arent you worried of that, didn’t you hear what happen in greek, a golden down neo nazi in the parliament who attacked two woman live on tv with no fear, that’s the fate of Finsland if nothing is done about these racist P.S

  5. jennins

    Hate-speech restriction are good but…

    You have to be consistent. The Supreme was NOT consistent. So who should give a good example if not the highest court. Blaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

    • JusticeDemon

      You have to be consistent.

      Timo Soini evidently disagrees with you.

      He promised to kick convicted racist criminals out of the party. Well, now he has one, and now we can see what his promises are worth.

  6. Iam

    Hi MT, all
    Good evening every body,
    How to Talk to a Racist??? LOL
    Really??
    Hey dont feel angry if u r not racist okay?
    And if u r a racist i just asked a question, question need answer and not anger, he he, but now
    Some believe that court here in Finalnd is not perfect????BUT WHY
    Why court was perefct when was against me?
    Whats that mean???
    ??????????????????????????????????????????
    Good night all and have a happy night uuuuuu alll

  7. jennins

    The previous comment implies that Migrant Tales is a home, house or similar. You enter the house and salute people when doing so.

    There are two kinds of racism. One that is intended by the perpetrator and is easily identified and provable. The second is a misunderstanding or an interpretation either on purpose or not. Easy for a newcomer to make wrong conclusions if he or she is a new member in a society.

    I fear that the alleged white racism (whatever it means) is a false interpretation, purposely done so. It is not defined and not provable or identified after requests.

  8. D4R

    Get Off Your Shell And See The World With Naked Eyes, M.T is real and on point, we we’re on truth and on point from day one, you don’t feel us becus you see us as threat when we’re not, unless you’re one of those who we’re about to address, either join us or be against us, it’s up to you.

  9. Mark

    Halla-aho was insulted by Yle and decided to use a newspaper’s arguments to replicate them into another issue.

    Rubbish. So he was insulted by a Finn writing about Finns, and he just had to reply to that by insulting Muslims and Somalis? Are you for real? And it’s not like Allah-oho ever writes anything negative about immigrants, is it? You are insulting people’s intelligence with this drivel. Your argument is a total crock of shit!

    You come here insulting us with vague and unsupported accusations about hate speech and racism, and you follow that up with a half-arsed justification for Allah-oho’s hate speech. So, which regular nasty piece of work are you? Elf? Farang?

    An issue which facts were not disputed by Supreme court but the way of communicating was inappropriate.

    This has been Allah-oho’s defence argument, but it is a total distortion and misrepresentation of the essence of this case, of what he actually wrote, which constituted a great deal more than mere stating of ‘facts’, and also the nature of the crime upon which he has been convicted. He simply refuses to understand the nature of his offence, but that does not make him any the less an offender.

    The facts you allude to are easily stated and do not constitute hate speech, defamation of religion or ethnic agitation. The facts are that Mohammad lived in a culture where arranged child marriages were the norm and where reproduction typically started following a girl’s menstruation. This was also in an age where the average lifespan was 35 years.

    In our own times, life span has more than doubled, and childhood typically lasts almost twice as long as previously. It was not unusual in olden times for people as young as 10 to be working or starting families. Say what you want about it, but if it is the cultural norm and people are already a quarter of the way through their lifespan, it’s hardly a hugely morally ambiguous matter.

    Young people today are shielded from the emotional, practical and psychological responsibilities of ‘adulthood’ today in a way that is totally different to that era, which lets remember was 1500 years ago. Today, as we live longer, age of first birth is currently 28, compared to 23 just 30 years ago. What if the age of marriage and consent was subsequently raised again to 25, following a lifespan that extended well into the 80s. Would that make all of today’s young couples and families into pedophiles? Hardly.

    Comparing these two cultures and trying to apply the morality of the modern world retrospectively so as to label someone a sex offender is morally corrupt. A person that does this has lost all sense of proportion and justice.

    Not only did Allah-oho do this, but he also extrapolated from that to suggest that Islam intrinsically advocates and promotes this kind of ‘illegal’ practice.

    Such an obvious attempt to smear and desecrate the sacred prophet of Islam and to misrepresent Islam in such a vile and insidious way cannot be tolerated in a society that values respect and standards of public decency.

    While free speech affords all of us a certain leeway in being able to create ‘offence’, it should not be an endless piece of string. I imagine you have no beef at all with the general laws regarding defamation? Only in regard to protecting Muslims? Or protecting people from racial denegration.

    Imagine this, jennings, what if I went back into your ancestry – how far back do you think I would have to go before I found an ancestor of yours that had married or had children below the age of 16?

    And once having identified this ancestor, what if I was then to offer this as ‘evidence’ that you and your family today advocate and promote pedophilia? It’s absurd.

    God help us if moral retards like yourself were ever to get into real positions of power in Finland.

  10. jennins

    I would like to know who you are. Are you

    -a political party
    -the same chromosome sibblings, line of brothers
    -another pact

    I suppose people in the house can disagree on things or are you so identical that the same thoughts circle inside your heads?

    The Supreme court did not question the facts Halla-aho presented. Apparently they are all true.

    What he questioned was that he had been personally insulted by Yle and pressed charges which were later dropped. He then decided to use the same language as a newspaper had used before because he thought that the prosecutor applied double standards.

    Can you explain this?

    • JusticeDemon

      People speaking the truth tend to be consistent. It’s only liars who get caught out with inconsistencies.

      The Supreme court did not question the facts…

      You evidently have little understanding of jurisprudence. Like any court of law, the Finnish Supreme Court focused on the facts that were relevant to the offence. These are derived from the elements of the crime as defined in the statute.

      To find that an offence of desecration had occurred, the court had to establish that the defendant (1) publicly and (2) with intent to offend (3) abused or defamed (4) something that a religious community considers Holy. These are the elements of the crime of desecration as it stood at the time of the offence.

      The Supreme Court found that Halal–höpö had publicly abused the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the religion of Islam with intent to offend. It therefore found Halal–höpö guilty of the crime of desecration.

      To find that an offence of ethnic agitation had occurred, the court had to establish that the defendant (1) publicly disseminated (2) opinions or other communications that (3) defame (4) some national population group.

      The Supreme Court found that Halal–höpö had publicly disseminated opinions that defame Somalis. It therefore found Halal–höpö guilty of the crime of ethnic agitation.

      It is irrelevant that Halal–höpö claims that his crimes were committed as some kind of perverted public demonstration against some perceived inconsistency in application of public policy. The Supreme Court acknowledged that this line of pleading had been submitted, but as the law does not admit of exceptions for “racist politicians trying to make clever points at the expense of religious and ethnic minorities”, it afforded no weight to this excuse.

      To do otherwise would be to create a specific Lex Halal–höpö that this petty fascist does not deserve.

  11. jennins

    Timo Soini evidently disagrees with you.

    He promised to kick convicted racist criminals out of the party. Well, now he has one, and now we can see what his promises are worth.

    who is a racist?

    • JusticeDemon

      who is a racist?

      The judgement of the Supreme Court is legally final. Ethnic agitation is, by definition, a racist offence. Halal–höpö is a convicted racist criminal.

      A liar is someone who makes promises with no intention of keeping them. Timo Soini promised to kick racists out of the peruSSuomalaiset. Now all he has is Arnie’s line.

  12. jennins

    Mark, Hate-speech regs are also very lucrative business because people become aware of ”hate”.

    People become intolerant to stress thus contributing to the medical industry, beer brewing, distillation of stronger alcohol, drug producers etc. Blood-pressure medicine, heart-medicine, narcotics, alcohol are being used to get cooled down.

    • Mark

      Jennine

      Is that supposed to be a coherent response to something? You are clearly out of your depth trying to have intelligent conversation about free speech and hate speech.

      But your here anyway, moaning about the homeliness, suggesting everyone here is somehow a clone of each other, which I presume is some pathetic attempt to imply no-one here can think for themselves, because that’s the only way you can try to discredit this site – vague smears and innuendo.

      You must be a lonely wretch to spend your time visiting a site you obviously have little motivation to understand. Stupid troll!

  13. jennins

    The judgement of the Supreme Court is legally final. Ethnic agitation is, by definition, a racist offence. Halal–höpö is a convicted racist criminal.

    A liar is someone who makes promises with no intention of keeping them. Timo Soini promised to kick racists out of the peruSSuomalaiset. Now all he has is Arnie’s line.

    Can you provide evidence of the court saying that Halla-aho ‘is a convicted racist criminal’?

    • JusticeDemon

      Can you provide evidence of the court saying that Halla-aho ‘is a convicted racist criminal’?

      The first sentence of paragraph 43 of the judgement:

      Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A:n syyksi luettava kiihottamisrikos on tiettyyn kansanryhmään kuuluvien ihmisten ihmisarvoa loukkaavana luonteeltaan verraten vakava.

      The Supreme Court finds the offence of ethnic agitation committed by Halal–höpö to be a relatively serious violation of the human dignity of people belonging to a certain population group.

      That’s legalese for “we are hereby convicting this asshole as a racist criminal”.

  14. jennins

    The first sentence of paragraph 43 of the judgement:

    The Supreme Court finds the offence of ethnic agitation committed by Halal–höpö to be a relatively serious violation of the human dignity of people belonging to a certain population group.

    That’s legalese for “we are hereby convicting this asshole as a racist criminal”.

    that is your interpretation not any of legality.

    You are also saying that the verdict is final when Halla-aho has stated that he considers complaining to the European Court of Human rights. You have a link to this statment here on this site.

    The European Court of Human rights is dealing with cases similar to this.

    Can you elaborate this final by your standards?

  15. JusticeDemon

    How do you interpret “ethnic agitation that is a serious violation of the human dignity of people belonging to a certain population group”?

    Oh – right – now I get it! There’s no racism in Finland so this remark of the Finnish Supreme Court must mean that Halal–höpö is just a misunderstood circus clown.

    Ethnic agitation is a racist crime par excellence. It is the overtly public dissemination of racist views in order to promote racist thinking.

    Halal–höpö is a convicted racist criminal. The Finnish Supreme Court could not have expressed this more clearly. Obviously you have personal problems coming to terms with this, but the fact remains.

    You also have no idea of the meaning of “legally final”. This judgement of the Supreme Court is legally final. It can no longer be overturned on appeal. At most it can be quashed by the Supreme Court itself on extraordinary petition. This remains the situation notwithstanding any petition to the ECtHR or ICJ.

    Let’s also remember that this is the guy who claimed that there is no such thing as human dignity. I’m sure that this Damascus road conversion of Halal–höpö to the cause of human rights (which are merely the legal consequences of human dignity) will last precisely as long as it takes to get the ruling of manifestly inadmissible from the Strasbourg chamber.

  16. Sasu

    Tämä on kiintoisaa. Mark ja JusticeDeamond ovat niin liberaaleja, että välillä tuntuu kuin he uskoisivat kaiken menevän pelkällä suvaiksevaisuudella. He edustavat maltillista rasismin vastustamista jossa pyritään luomaan siltoja vihamiellisten ryhmien välille. Mark itse on korostanut että viimekädessä valkoiset voivat ymmärtää rasimiaa aivan yhtähyvin kuin värillisetkin jos he vain opettelevat.

    King oli aina huoliksaan liberalistisen rasismin vastustamisen epäonnistumista. Hän muistutti Letter from Birmingham Jail että radikalit voimat ovat nurkantaka valmiina tuhoamaan rauhanomaisen vastarinnan jos maltillisuus epäonnistuu.

    Jennins neuvon sinua kannattamaan Markin ja JuctinDeamondin suuntaa koska jos he epäonnistuvat silloin rasismin vastainen liike radikalisoituu.

  17. Mark

    Sasu

    Mark itse on korostanut että viimekädessä valkoiset voivat ymmärtää rasimiaa aivan yhtähyvin kuin värillisetkin jos he vain opettelevat.

    It’s perhaps stretching my previous comments to say that I think whites can in principle understand racism as well as blacks. However, the ground is there, the common human experience and of power relations is there. And the basis of empathy is also there. This is not the same as ‘living a life subject to constant discrimination’, but it is ‘common ground’ as you seem to point out.

  18. Kauko

    This comment fell short of our community standards and was deleted by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

    Red card

    Commenting from multiple accounts.

    • Sasu

      Teen vain eron niistä jotka yrittävät maltillisesti hoitaa ongelmaa ja niistä jotka haluavat hoitaa ongelman kuntoon liittolaisten kanssa tai omien kanssa vain.

      Liberaalit yrittävät tyydyttämään kaikkia mutta radikaalit pyrkivät pelastamaan itsesä hinnalla millä hyvänensä.

Leave a Reply