Halla-aho scandal in Finland: Leadership is now needed more than ever

by , under Enrique

Finland’s political parties,  including the Perussuomalaiset (PS), have a golden opportunity to show leadership and make a clear break from Jussi Halla-aho and his Suomen Sisu association followers. We’ll be back, however, to square one if Halla-aho’s heir-apparent, Juho Eerola, becomes the new chairman of the administration committee of parliament. 

Suomen Sisu is an extremist association that discourages Finns from marrying foreigners, especially those with African or Muslim backgrounds.

Suomen Sisu discourages Finns from marrying foreigners. Source: Vallan vahtikoira.

What value can an anti-immigration politician like MP Eerola bring to the administration committee, which sets, among other matters, immigration policy?

Eerola claims that he has enough experience to be the chairman of such an important committee because he has worked at a refugee center in Kotka.  The PS MP is a practical nurse by profession who has done a number of odd jobs to survive before he was elected to parliament last year.

Apart from his unimpressive qualifications and experience to chair the administration committee, one of the matters that should set alarm bells ringing are Eerola’s extremist political views. These are well-known. He once wrote that he liked Benito Mussolini’s economic system because there was full employment.

His views of a dictator like Mussolini and the corporatist state that maintained him in power reveals more ignorance than anything else. How much employment was there in Italy after Mussolini’s policies and political world view brought so much devastation and suffering to the country?

Eerola wasn’t too concerned last year when his aide, Ulla Pyysalo, was found on a membership list of the Suomen Kansalinen Vastarinta, a neo-Nazi association.

There has been too much complacency by political parties to a small extremist group within the PS led by Halla-aho. Finland and its political parties have today the opportunity to offer leadership by giving a clear thumbs down to Eerola and begin the process of isolating Halla-aho and his cronies.

There is a clear message in our actions: Finland will not tolerate people who want to exclude others because of their ethnic background.


 

 

 

    • Mark

      Actually no. He’s earned his place in parliament based on his mandate at the last election. No doubt he will have an even bigger number of votes next time round. Just don’t give him any job that’s related to immigration.

      Re-education? So, we are communists now, are we 🙂

  1. tp1

    There is a clear message in our actions: Finland will not tolerate people who want to exclude others because of their ethnic background.

    And you want to exclude others because of their opinions. How can you honestly then say that you are any better than those who you are complaining about here?

    • JusticeDemon

      And you want to exclude others because of their opinions.

      You are entitled to your opinion, but you are also responsible for the consequences if you cannot express that opinion without committing ethnic agitation or desecration. You are similarly entitled to be an exhibitionist, but if you express that proclivity in the wrong circumstances (e.g. to strangers or children in a public park) then you will face legal consequences. You may fantasise about causing gratuitous pain, but if you act out your fantasy, even with animals, then you run a significant risk of prosecution. You may feel like threatening another person with violence, but expressing such a threat is similarly unlawful. Didn’t one of your hommaforum chums learn this the hard way about 18 months ago?

      People are responsible for the way in which they express themselves, and most particularly when that expression has concrete consequences for others. This is why you can expect a custodial sentence if you shout “fire” in a crowded theatre or “bomb” in a crowded airport. The obvious link between ethnic agitation and social unrest has been recognised for a very long time. This is why you would not accept an invitation to repeat Halal-hölynpöly’s views in Mogadishu, even if you had 300 Spartans to protect you.

      These laws are designed to ensure that society can function smoothly without arousing violent and otherwise destructive passions. They also discourage potentially dangerous spirals of revenge from developing, which is another important function of the criminal justice system.

      How can you honestly then say that you are any better than those who you are complaining about here?

      It speaks volumes about you that you perceive these matters in terms of superiority. Aikuistu jo.

    • Mark

      tp1

      And you want to exclude others because of their opinions. How can you honestly then say that you are any better than those who you are complaining about here?

      Hmm, what exactly are you saying with this accusation? We want to exclude others because of their opinion?

      Let me ask you, would want a convicted thief to be your bank manager? Would you want someone convicted of grievous assault to be your local policeman? Would you want someone convicted of gross negligence to be your personal physician?

      The answer is simple, do you want someone who is a convicted racist to have a significant influence on immigration policy? Ugh….no thanks!

      Why are we better than those we are complaining about? That’s a good one. Allah-oho has been punished by the court, and has now lost the confidence of his fellow parliamentarians. You could say that these are all part and parcel of the consequences of his breaking the law twice. You could say these are his punishment.

      Now let me see, when people are punished, it is quite easy to argue, as you seem to be, that those doing the punishing are in fact breaking the law themselves.

      So, by your reasoning, someone fined by the courts for theft will have money taken off them by the court against their will and without their permission – i.e. the court is stealing money.

      By your reasoning, someone who kidnaps someone else and subjects them to confined imprisonment and is then himself detained by the police and sent to prison by the courts, will suffer at the hands of the court to be kidnapped and confined in a prison against his will for several years.

      According to you, the courts are no better therefore than the criminals?

Leave a Reply