It’s official: The PS doesn’t mind racists, Nazis and neo-Nazis among its ranks

by , under Enrique

A Perussuomalaiset (PS) party statement, giving Vaasa councilman Risto Helin a warning about a Hitler clock he gave to a neo-Nazi club in Vaasa, is a good example of political deception. If you read the statement carefully, it says that the party doesn’t mind racists, Nazis and neo-Nazis among its ranks as long as you do this dirty stuff  before becoming a party member.

Kuvankaappaus 2013-3-31 kello 13.26.57
Read full statement here.

The PS states:  “According to Vaasa’s Perussuomalaiset, racism, Nazism or neo-Nazism have not place in the values of the Perussuomalaiset. The association has given a warning to Helin for what he did two years ago.”

The PS are quite an incredible group. The fact that they become the third-largest party in parliament after the 2011 election from relative obscurity, reveals that they too are capable of Superman feats. Some of their members like Helin become “in a single bound” model politicians and examples to the rest of the community.

The PS could stand for PerusSuperman. Look up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s PerusSuperman!

 

  1. D4R

    Strange things are happening in Finland. Today i was reading Iltasanomat that a motel in Salo flagged nazi flag, i was shocked, like what is going on?

  2. Farang

    I dont understand why PS even need to give warning about something helin did as private citizen before he was even a member.

    Why do you want to give life sentence to all people who does something against your views?

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –Why do you want to give life sentence to all people who does something against your views?

      Why do you persist to debate these things on Migrant Tales? If we’re honest, there’s nothing to debate. And why should we with a person who doesn’t understand who was and what Adolf Hitler represents.

      There’s no point, don’t you agree?

    • D4R

      Because nazi’s are danger to humanrights and democracy, and politician should avouid associating with them, otherwise they can’t be trusted.

    • Happy

      Farang,
      You are Migrant Tales’ racist contributor and defender, so I suppose it is important to you that someone (well, you) defends the racists of PS and all that they stand for.

      I would think that after been on Migrant Tales for so long, you would finally give up your racism, and be a more tolerant person. Alas, you are one hardened racist supporter/defender. I can’t help but feel sorry for you

    • Farang

      I am here because otherwise this site would be just full of one-sided dialog which spreads incorrect information of Finland and Finns.

      I just give the readers the another viewpoint.

      And you know I’m right. Even Enrique is so scared that he doesn’t allow me to post here without him checking my messages first. And he just deletes whenever the truth I say is too awkward for him and he doesn’t have any counter arguments for them.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –And you know I’m right. Even Enrique is so scared that he doesn’t allow me to post here without him checking my messages first.

      Who posts with his real name? That tells you a lot.

      I’m not the only one who deletes comments on MT.

    • Mark

      Your posts are blocked when you start to troll relentlessly, repeating the same argument over and over even though it has been adequately refuted and at the same time repeating accusations about the lack of integrity of Migrant Tales. We are not here to give a platform for your views, Farang. If you want to debate, then you should follow the rules of reasonable debate, and that includes avoiding the most fallaciously false arguments. If you were adding new points to your argument, then I expect your posts would make it through moderation.

      Saying that there have been no counterarguments is simply your view of what has happened when you chose not to respond and acknowledge where have been perfectly valid counterarguments. If you don’t like the rules of debate, I suggest you improve your debating skills.

    • Farang

      Ok, then it’s propably Mark. I still wonder how come Mark is the only one here who constantly makes verbal attacks against other people having discussion. Everyone else is totally able to discuss covilized and with good manners.

    • Mark

      My ‘verbal attacks’ fall into two camps. One tactic of verbal attack I used on you recently was to illustrate through example how you would call for standards of conduct for verbal exchanges when it was you that was the object of attack, but not when it was immigrants. You duly obliged by demanding that Enrique consider the rules of the site that allowed me to attack you in this way.

      The other category of ‘verbal attack’ that I aim in your direction Farang is an expression of disgust at the sheer outrageousness and inhumanity in your arguments. Some of the comments you make deserve an honest emotional response. However, I will never leave it at that – you will also receive a rational and argued response at the same time. I’m not interested in ad hominem attacks, but I think it is right that when you make comments that are truly disgusting, then how this reflects on your character should be pointed out.

      As one of your worst examples, you recently tried to explain away insitutionalised racism in the police by accusing women of making up rape claims, as if this would make up for a very heavy skew in statistics.

  3. Happy

    I am here because otherwise this site would be just full of one-sided dialog which spreads incorrect information of Finland and Finns.

    I just give the readers the another viewpoint.

    And you know I’m right. Even Enrique is so scared that he doesn’t allow me to post here without him checking my messages first. And he just deletes whenever the truth I say is too awkward for him and he doesn’t have any counter arguments for them.

    Farang,
    What are those “truths” you always say on this blog? Could you list some of them? I don’t think the goal of this blog is to target Finns, or to attack Finnish culture. If that was the case, then people like Halla-Aho and Co, and the PS itself, would not feature so prominently here. The PS, Hallo-Aho and Co. feature here so often because of their bigotry and intolerance. What you are doing, is defending that bigotry and racism. What you are not doing, is defending Finland and Finns.

  4. Farang

    By truth I mean things which I need to correct because MT usually twist those around. Here’s some examples:

    1. MT claims that Halla-aho is a racist. I have revealed the truth and said that he is not a racist.

    2. MT claims that Eerola support fascism and he has said it himself. That is not true. Eerola said that he is FASCINATED by fascism. This only means that he in interested in that ideology and the features of it. Same way as someone might be interested in racism as a phenomenon and likes to study it, while still condemnd racism.

    3. MT claims that I am defending racists. That is not true. I don’t. I have never defended racists. I have only contributed in discussion by giving my analysis on issues that may cause impulses or racism in some people. But you have serious diffuculties to understand that that is not defending or justifying racism.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      We don’t “claim” anything especially when it comes to far right politicians.

      1. MT claims that Halla-aho is a racist. I have revealed the truth and said that he is not a racist.

      Halla-aho got sentenced for ethnic agitation. He generalizes about other groups, a trademark of a racist politician.

      2. MT claims that Eerola support fascism and he has said it himself. That is not true. Eerola said that he is FASCINATED by fascism.

      Oops! Remember Ulla Pyysalo, his aide who applied for membership in the neo-Nazi Kansalinen Vastarinta? I’m not going to get into nuances. It’s pretty clear: fascist/far right/radical right wing take your pick.

      3. 3. MT claims that I am defending racists. That is not true.

      Your line of thought is very much like Halla-aho’s and Eerola’s. You can rewrite history to suit your own prejudices and ignorance. You do so ANONYMOUSLY. This shows you are a voter and not a politician. The only reason why people with such an agenda would publish their racist thoughts with their names would be to get votes. You can’t vote for someone anonymous, right?

      If you really believed in what you said, why do you post comments anonymously?

      In the past we had people like DeTant Blomhat, Tiwaz, Tony and many other who attempted to “teach” us how wrong we were. DeTant Blomhat was/is a frustrated social worker who works with immigrants. He hates his job and that why he hates immigrants and writes racist stuff anonymously (he’s afraid to lose his job). Tiwaz was a neo-Nazi disguised as a “good Finn.” His name, Tiwaz, gave away his neo-Nazi colors. Tony was a spoiled white kid from Brazil who never got it. He believed that by bashing immigrants he would be accepted by Europeans. He’s probably living off welfare these days or if employed, making much less than before due to the crisis.

      Who are you Farang and what is your real motive for visiting us on MT?

    • Farang

      Enrique

      Halla-aho got sentenced for ethnic agitation. He generalizes about other groups, a trademark of a racist politician.

      That is correct, but you haven’t been able to mention a single actual racist act that Halla-aho would have done. That sentence he got was a) incorrect and b) not about racism. If you actually read the piece he wrote (which he got the sentence about) you can clearly see there is no racism there.

      And if it was that simple, why would you think he wasn’t found guilty in lower courts?

    • Farang

      Enrique

      2. MT claims that Eerola support fascism and he has said it himself. That is not true. Eerola said that he is FASCINATED by fascism.
      Oops! Remember Ulla Pyysalo, his aide who applied for membership in the neo-Nazi Kansalinen Vastarinta? I’m not going to get into nuances. It’s pretty clear: fascist/far right/radical right wing take your pick.

      Now this gets interesting. Instead of providing proof about Eerola’s fascism, you give examples of another person and her actions?

    • Enrique Tessieri

      I’m not going to get into nuances. Eerola’s fascination of Mussolini’s economic system should not only worry sensible Finns but how off track he is. Mussolini’s Italy was run by dinosaur-like companies that were very inefficient. Imagine if we adopted Mussolini’s economic policies in Finland? It would spell economic disaster. This kind of an economic system would suit Eerola fine.

      Argentina under Peron copied Mussolini’s Italy: large dinosaur monopolies controlled by unions. This was a disaster for Argentina.

      If a person is sentenced for ethnic agitation it does suggest something like he may be multiculturally challenged.

    • Farang

      I work WITH immigrants, meaning part of my colleagues are immigrants.

      Why I write anonymously? Unfortunately there are lots of people who think like you in my working environment. And some of those people have the power to affect my career possibilities. If I would write with my own name, it could harm me.

      Please answer this honestly: If you were an employer and I was applying for position and had a job interview with you, and it became clear to you that I am Farang from MT. Would you hire me, assuming that I would otherwise be qualified for the job?

    • Enrique Tessieri

      So Farang, that’s why you visit MT because you are frustrated. How long have you worked with immigrants?

    • Mark

      Farang

      I work WITH immigrants

      The phrase you are looking for is ‘ALONGSIDE immigrants’. You work in computing and IT, Farang, as your usernames (Farang, tp1) make abundantly clear, and so it is absolutely no suprise that you work alongside immigrants, most likely Indians.

      I think your political views should not affect your job application and if they did, then you would have a legal case for discrimination. However, I’m quite sure that your employer and colleagues might view your character differently knowing some of the shit you write here. But still, your private views are your business, not your employers. The question is can you get on with people and can you do your job. I think this paranoia of yours is probably unwarranted.

      You do realise that this is a big part of the appeal of Far Right ideologies – that you are somehow an ‘oppressed’ group? This helps make you more vulnerable to brainwashing and improves loyalty, so it is a narrative that is actively encouraged in Far Right groups, whether by design or by delusion.

    • Farang

      I’m not frustrated. I like my colleagues and enjoy working with them.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –I’m not frustrated. I like my colleagues and enjoy working with them.

      If you come to a site like MT and fail to recognize the harm that people like Halla-aho can cause on immigrants and visible minorities, then you most likely don’t get it. The stereotypes they spread are harmful to society. Now, the question is if you permit such attitudes to be reflected in your work with immigrants. If you state that they don’t, then you are living a pretty schizophrenic life at work.

      Part of understanding, or getting it, concerning immigrants and cultural diversity is understanding the issues and problems.

      Since a person may not get it, all the decisions and guidance he gives conforms to the status quo or to institutionalized racism so prevalent in our country.

    • Mark

      Farang

      1. MT claims that Halla-aho is a racist. I have revealed the truth and said that he is not a racist.

      MT claims that Halla-aho is an extremist Far Right politician who has been convicted of ethnic agitation and defamation of religion. His continued agitation is detrimental to the wellbeing of immigrants and the freedoms and rights of ALL citizens of Finland. Halla-aho is a well-known counterjihadist and co-architect of the fascist political document, the Nuiva Vaalimanifesti. It is fascist exactly because it exploits prejudices against minorities in order to gain political ‘credibility’, calling for ‘tougher’ action that in fact undermines the fundamental rights of minorities.

      That is not true. Eerola said that he is FASCINATED by fascism.

      You can split hairs all you like, but Eerola is also another co-architect of the Nuiva Vaalimanifesti, so it is hardly a matter for discussion that he is following a modern fascist agenda.

      3. MT claims that I am defending racists. That is not true.

      You defend racists by saying that their ‘racist’ actions do not harm anyone except themselves, even though this time and again refers to the actions of PS politicians and stories and actions that are in the public domain, i.e. no longer private. Arguing there is no harm and so there is no racism is about as infantile as it gets.

      Farang, you are a joke.

    • Mark

      Farang

      There is absolutely nothing fascist in Nuiva Manifesti.

      Please show me even one part from that what is fascist.

      Farang, you have admitted yourself that you have not studied Nazism and that you did not pay any attention during history classes. Now you are telling me you are an expert on fascism? Not only that, but having made a blanket denial of fascism, you once again ask me to do your homework for you.

      I will write a post on the Nuiva Vaalimanifesti and how it relates to fascism, but it won’t be today. And I will not get into a discussion with you today about it. Not unless you want to show me that you actually know a single thing about fascism! What’s the point? If you are ignorant, then I have to educate you. If I try to educate you, you will kick and scream and deny everything. What a pointless waste of my time!

      I will put it to you this way – go through the manifesto and simply make a note of the topics discussed. Make a note of what is being said about immigrants, both positive and negative. Then look at what is said about other minorities. Then consider the basis of the negative arguments, i.e. whether social, economic, cultural etc. Then consider what status and rights would be given to immigrants based on this manifesto. Then consider how that would impact on current national and international legislation covering immigrants and their status. What covenents, decrees, legislation, and treaties would have to be ripped up to fully implement the manifesto? Considering the size of this ‘shift’ in political alignment, would it take Finland into an ‘extreme’ position in regard to human rights issues and obligations arising from them? Having considered what the manifesto considers, now analyse what it doesn’t consider? What factors relating to immigrant wellbeing and political protection are not covered in the manifesto? Why not? Consider this document as a political manifesto and consider whether it represents a balanced approach to immigration and cultural diversity, or whether it constitutes an ‘extreme’ position in the political, social and expert landscape of immigration?

      Having weighed up all those points – does this political document consitute a Far Right, neo-fascist agenda? The answer is a resounding YES, Farang.

      But hey, I don’t expect you to exert a single fucking bead of sweat trying to actually honestly answer any of these questions that I have put forward. I do expect you to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and go “blah, blah blah” every time someone attempts to educate your sorry arse!

    • Enrique Tessieri

      Farang, the Nuiva Manifesto is a pipe dream of multiculturally challenged persons trying to figure out cultural diversity. It could never be adopted because it’s for assimilation as opposed to integration.

      Assimilation is one-way integration.

    • Farang

      In my opinion, one-way integration is the only correct way. People coming here should be aware how things are here and then integrate.

      The receiving country should NEVER change because of immigrants.

    • Mark

      So, when your daughter marries a foreigner, whose customs are different to those of Finland, you will insist that at family events, no accommodation whatsoever will be made to acknowledge or respect your son-in-law’s own family traditions? In fact, you will ignore him when he speaks English, because that is forcing you to ‘change’ your normal behaviour. When your daughter tells you that your grandson will be called ‘Mohammed’, you will refuse to call him by his name? When they invite you to their house for dinner, you will refuse to eat, because the food has been made using ingredients and spices from a different part of the world? When they put a CD of music on, you will put your fingers in your ears and go “blah, blah, blah” because it is not Finnish Iskelmä?

      The problem with you Farang is that you live in a bubble and have no idea how the real world works. Multiculturalism is not an ideology – it is a form of politiness that all ordinary people exercise when they come into contact with the wider world beyond the scope of one’s existing immediate ‘family’.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –In my opinion, one-way integration is the only correct way. People coming here should be aware how things are here and then integrate.

      If you work with immigrants as you say, you should get some of your basic concepts right. Assimilation is one-way integration and integration is two-way. What does two-way integration mean? It means give and take. You share public spaces with others and respect others as they must respect your group.

      I told you that the Nuiva Manifesto was dead before it was ever published. It’s an example of extreme assimilation and ethnocentrism.

    • Farang

      Either you have no idea what I mean by “not changing because of immigrants” or you do and you try to get away with it by inventing such a stupid examples.

      What I mean by not changing because of immigrants are things like this:
      – We don’t stop serving pork in schools
      – We don’t allow prayers in work places
      – We don’t allow more than 1 wife per man
      – etc.

      These just for example. What immigrants do privately in their homes is their own business. I would have no problems using English with my daughter’s husband of calling their children by their given names. I would be delighted to enjoy different kind of food when I’m visiting their home.

    • Mark

      They were not stupid examples. They were a response to a very absolute stand that you took.

      The receiving country should NEVER change because of immigrants.

      You even used capitals to emphasis the idea that a country should never change. Now you move the goal posts when you are called out on such ridiculous absolutist statements that aren’t worth the paper they are written on. Hot air rhetoric that has no substance.

      – We don’t stop serving pork in schools

      It is for the schools to decide what is on their menu, not for national politicians to dictate on very dubious political grounds. If a faith school had pupils that were all Finnish Muslim or Jews, then there is no reason to serve pork.

      – We don’t allow prayers in work places

      Again, that is for employers to decide. The government have no business telling employers what concessions they can or cannot make on cultural grounds, provided that health and safety are not compromised. What you seem to suggest is a nanny state, where for purely ideological reasons, an employer is told that he cannot allow his workers to take time to fulfill personal obligations.

      – We don’t allow more than 1 wife per man

      Why not? If these are consenting adults, on what grounds would you seek to interfer in their domestic setup? Of course, you could also allow a woman to have more than one husband. Either way, this is an issue for public debate. What is clear is that if you are going to tell people what they can or cannot do in cultural terms, then the reasoning must also be clear and convincing. A democracy does allow for ideas to be scrutinised. The put this ‘ideas’ off the table, and yet you are constantly telling us that democracy is about the freedom to discuss ideas. Seems that you allegiance to ‘democracy’ is mostly when you are defending hate speech. When it comes to ‘discussion’ about cultural taboos or norms, suddenly you are saying that Finland should NEVER change, merely to satisfy your narrow view of how culture should operate.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      Are these rules made up by you?

      What I mean by not changing because of immigrants are things like this:
      – We don’t stop serving pork in schools
      – We don’t allow prayers in work places
      – We don’t allow more than 1 wife per man
      – etc.

      Have the Muslims asked Finns to stop eating pork at school?
      Prayers can be allowed as long as they do not interfere with one’s work. I’m certain there is more time wasted by people following Facebook and Iltalehti at work than by a person praying for five minutes.
      Whose demanding more than one wife in Finland? Oh, you mean serial monogamy. We get married to different with many women at different times and have children with them. A common practice in this country and in Europe.

    • Farang

      “country should not change” doesn’t mean that individual people could not change.

    • Mark

      Now you have deteriorated into vagueness! I guess that is the inevitable end when you try to push an absolute stance when it comes to anything remotely ‘cultural’.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –“country should not change” doesn’t mean that individual people could not change.

      The problem with this statement is that you believe cultures are static. They do change. Look at what Finland was thirty or forty years ago. Go to the stores and see the difference. I don’t hear any Finns, except for some in the PS, wanting to go back to those times when people ate horrible spaghetti (Napoli) that stuck together no matter how much you boiled it never mind never heard of pizza.

    • Bara Chiel

      Given your soap opera-like relationship with reality, Farang, I feel like asking if these immigrants you speak of exist outside of your head.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Mark, how do you explain that also the immigrants that I spend my time with, agrees with my views on immigration?

      Why are you such a fool? Why do you treat other people like fools? I don’t get it.

      Let’s see now, the ideas you have about immigration are what – that immigrants should be ‘high quality’? And these people you are talking to are highly paid members of the IT community, who are ‘guests’ in your country. And you expect to hear a vigorous critique of your ideas from these people?

      Not only that, but you present it as such an absolute – not that they agree with some things you might say, but ‘agrees with my views on immigration’, as if you have received a complete and full 100% mandate for every stupid idea on immigration you have ever peddled here to us at Migrant Tales. Get real. We are not fools, Farang.

  5. Farang

    Mark

    The phrase you are looking for is ‘ALONGSIDE immigrants’

    No, I work WITH immigrants. We do work together. “Alongside” would refer that I work in same place with immigrants but not together with them. There is a difference.

    • Mark

      No, you are mistaken. When you write ‘I work with immigrants’ it means that your work is directed towards immigrants and is directly related to their immigrant status. What you mean is that you work ‘alongside’. Take my word for it. Alongside means ‘together’ in the sense you intend.

  6. Farang

    Mark

    You work in computing and IT, Farang, as your usernames (Farang, tp1) make abundantly clear, and so it is absolutely no suprise that you work alongside immigrants, most likely Indians.

    Oops, did you just reveal your prejudices?

    Why else would you immediately assume that immigrants working in IT area are Indians? Why not Africans?

    • Farang

      But you would not approve if someone said similarly about some other ethnic group regarding “It’s called knowledge of the crime sector”?

    • Mark

      Farang

      But you would not approve if someone said similarly about some other ethnic group regarding “It’s called knowledge of the crime sector”?

      Usually that kind of comment denotes a distinct lack of knowledge of the crime sector.

      Farang, it is no secret that TEKES have been making overtures to Indian IT companies to come and open up shop in Finland and to send Indian IT engineers to help man the set ups. Over a thousand IT engineers from India have moved and permanently settled in Finland. Fact.

      It is also a fact that India’s IT sector has grown from 1.2% of GDP in 1998 to 7.5% in 2012, amounting to $100 billion. Africa on the other hand has been described as the ‘lost continent of Information Technology’, the largest in size and yet the smallest information technology sector.

      So, tell me, what nationality/ies are your work colleagues?

    • Farang

      So, tell me, what nationality/ies are your work colleagues?

      German and Danish.

    • Mark

      Farang

      German and Danish.

      lolololol! Your idea of ‘immigrant’ colleagues who don’t question your hard line stand on immigrants is wealthy IT engineers from Germany and Holland. That’s your reputation in flames, once again.

      And my guess is that your CEO is an Indian, Rajeev Suri.

    • Farang

      I make no difference where the people are from. Each one is equal, came he from India, Somalia, Germany, where ever.

      Why does it seem to matter to you where people are from? You relate to people differently depending on where they come from, why is that? Why should it matter?

    • Mark

      Farang

      I make no difference where the people are from.

      And in your previous comment, you wrote this:

      All these criminals were immigrants and all the victims were finns.

      It seems the right side of your brain does not know what the left side is up to!

      Why does it seem to matter to you where people are from?

      It doesn’t matter. But this website provides a voice for immigrants. Native Finns have plenty of channels and means of communicating their opinions, particularly about the issue of immigration. Why is it a big deal for you that immigrants would organise a website that deals with issues of immigration from immigrants’ perspective? Why would you then complain that it deals almost exclusively with this perspective?

      One minute you say that people can form groups, but the next they cannot! Make your mind up, Farang. Will you try to ban foreigners from having a website dedicated to looking at things that affect them?

  7. Happy

    “country should not change” doesn’t mean that individual people could not change.

    I am very skeptical of people who when pushed on an issue, attempt to rationalize it by saying, “I have immigrant friends”, “I even dated a black girl”. It gives one the false impression that those Finns or White people who don’t have immigrant or non-white friends are intolerant towards other races or cultures. Saying that you work with or alongside immigrants when pushed, doesn’t make you any more tolerant towards them if you spend your evenings ranting about the “injustices” that Hallo-Aho & Co. are receiving. Your Litmus test: well Farang, lets assume one of your immigrant colleagues reads all the “arguments”, “justifications”, “rationalizations” you have been making in defense of racist PS parliamentarians. Do you think they would be comfortable in your presence (assuming they are now)? Do you think when you tell them you are not a racist, you are just trying to explain the misunderstandings from these (racist) comments, your colleagues will be convinced?
    Have you ever mentioned to your immigrant colleagues that you spend most of your evenings arguing for the racist arguments by racist politicians?

  8. Happy

    German and Danish.

    Farang,
    So the immigrants you have been boosting about are from Germany and Holland? Good grief!! You are so blindsided by your hate for “others”, you will justify it through just any means. Your “war” is not just against immigration (in fact, you have nothing against White people migrating to Finland). You just can’t stand people whose skin color isn’t white.

    • Farang

      Why is it so hard to understand: I don’t hate anyone.

      I only oppose immigration politics, which causes problems. And please notive: I oppose immigration politics. I don’t oppose immigrants.

      Immigration in Finland is not a problem, atleast not yet. I just don’t want the same happen in Finland that has happened in Sweden, France, etc.

    • Mark

      Farang

      I only oppose immigration politics, which causes problems.

      But that is the problem. Your attack on ‘immigration politics’ is completely one-sided – you do not consider the positives of immigration, the challenges of integration or the value in ‘other’ cultures, particularly Islamic or African cultures. You set Finnish culture up as ‘the best’ and then cherry pick media stories that make foreigners look bad. That is the problem, you only opppose and make no effort to understand!

      And yet you are talking about issues that directly affect human beings, that directly affect their well-being, their status, and their prospects. The more negative shit you stir up, the more difficult you make it for the vast majority of innocent, law-abiding and hard working/studying immigrants who have found themselves trying to make a life in Finland.

      You cannot claim that you oppose immigration politics and then claim that you have to take no responsibility for how those policies or your opposition to certain policies actually affect immigrants.

      I just don’t want the same happen in Finland that has happened in Sweden, France, etc.

      Your view of these countries is jaundiced. It’s poisoned. You look on it as a failure, and in doing so, you fail all the immigrants living in those countries that have made a success of their life and opportunity in the new environment. Anyone that sets out to make political gain out of social deprivation through encouraging a culture of blame and prejudice do not deserve even an ounce of respect. They have lost the right to make political arguments, because they have become abusers, racist and bigoted abusers whose campaigns of hate, denigration and insulting of foreigners and their cultures leave us in no doubt that they do not VALUE human life or human dignity, no matter how much they might claim to protect their ‘native’ culture.

      Sweden is a successful country. A good bit of that success is now contributed to by its significant immigrant population. Sweden comes highest in most of the social indicators. It is a model for the rest of the world in so many areas of public service. And yet you want to point to that country as being some kind of failure, because of its immigrant population.

      Sweden is not without social problems. No country is (except perhaps Norway, and yet they still had to suffer that monster Breivik). Sweden’s population is twice that of Finland and its youth unemployment is particularly high. Youth unemployment in Sweden of those aged under 24 is the worst of the OECD countries (24%). That is a serious problem. Not a problem of immigration, but a social problem of exclusion, from the labour market, from resources, from security, from opportunity. That is a recipe for crime and social problems. Blaming immigration is missing the point, big style. Swedish society is divided on how to solve the problem. Employers say lower wages would allow more youth into the labour market. Unions say this undermines standards of living for existing workers and won’t create jobs, but it will create an underclass of ‘working poor’, which does not solve the fundamental problem – which is a fair opportunity to get on the career ladder.

      These are the problems, and there are no easy solutions. Across the entire EU, youth unemployment runs at 20%. And don’t kid yourself that this group is made entirely of immigrants, it isn’t. Immigrants form one part, the other parts being the ‘overqualified’, and those who are forced into insecure employment, on temporary contracts or doing part-time work.

      You see society’s challenges through a single lens, that of ‘immigration’. Your solution, which is laughably naive, is simply to ‘oppose’ those policies. You get nowhere near solving or understanding the real social problems behind exclusion and instead, create an atmosphere of distrust, bitterness and condascension towards ‘other’ cultures.

      You might not feel like you ‘hate’ anyone, but the kind of selective way of describing certain kinds of immigrants certainly doesn’t feel very friendly, farang. In fact, if feels distinctly hostile!

    • Farang

      Here’s an example:

      This group robbed and assaulted elder people and handicapped invalids. All these criminals were immigrants and all the victims were finns.

      If this was vice versa, meaning finns had assaulted and robbed immigrat, you people here in MT would be yelling racism and nazism and everything. But now you are quiet and try to be like this never happened.

    • Mark

      Shocking crimes by this gang of five youths. Sentences from 5-7 to years. Justice done! There might have been an element of ‘racism’ in these crimes, but no mention is made of it here. What is clear is that there are a lot more Finns in Finland than foreigners, so perhaps it’s no surprise that all the victims were Finns. If there was selection of Finns, then clearly that would be completely unjustifiable, but so far there has been no mention of that, so I really don’t see why you would even begin to suggest it. Unless you are trying to simply reverse arguments about racism in Finland as if to water down the notion of some Finns being racist – God forbid.

      That all the perpetrators were foreigners, though of different nationalities, certainly needs looking into. Police and researchers in Finland have said that the very small number of ‘gang’ problems is to do with excluded youth. Now tell me Farang, what are you going to do about that as a problem? Are you going to call them bad people, and use these ‘bad people’ to stigmatise foreigners, or do you have anything constructive to share on the issue of ‘excluded’ youth? Thought not!

  9. Farang

    It doesn’t matter. But this website provides a voice for immigrants. Native Finns have plenty of channels and means of communicating their opinions, particularly about the issue of immigration. Why is it a big deal for you that immigrants would organise a website that deals with issues of immigration from immigrants’ perspective? Why would you then complain that it deals almost exclusively with this perspective?
    One minute you say that people can form groups, but the next they cannot! Make your mind up, Farang. Will you try to ban foreigners from having a website dedicated to looking at things that affect them?

    I want to help immigrants. If we keep issues truthful, it will have better outcome.

    It’s frustrating to read every day what a racist I am. From people that don’t know me at all. You’d be surprised what I have done in order to help these people.

    • Mark

      Farang

      It’s frustrating to read every day what a racist I am. From people that don’t know me at all. You’d be surprised what I have done in order to help these people.

      I’ve no sympathy for you. I’m a fair person, Farang, and I’ve no axe to grind with you or anyone. So the fact that little by little you have turned me against you and left me feeling that you are pretty despicable as a human being is quite an achievement and one you have succeeded at entirely through your own efforts.

      Suddenly trying to present yourself as a victim in all this frankly makes me feel sick! You have said nothing on this blog that would make me think you were a friend to immigrants!

  10. Farang

    Now tell me Farang, what are you going to do about that as a problem? Are you going to call them bad people, and use these ‘bad people’ to stigmatise foreigners, or do you have anything constructive to share on the issue of ‘excluded’ youth? Thought not!

    We should do something before the start doing these crimes. If we can’t get them integrated in to this society, what else can we expect than crimes.

    This is the root of the problems. We are taking more people in even when we don’t even know how to integrate the people who already are here.

    I am not saying that because of this incident ALL immigrants would be criminals. No, that’s not it. My point here was simply to illustrate how I as a finn feel everytime you go through here issues where the roles are reserved.

    • Mark

      Farang

      We should do something before the start doing these crimes. If we can’t get them integrated in to this society, what else can we expect than crimes.

      This is the root of the problems. We are taking more people in even when we don’t even know how to integrate the people who already are here.

      You haven’t been paying attention, have you? The problem is not immigration related, it’s not about ‘integration’, it’s about opportunity. And there simply isn’t any. Now look, Farang, in recent years I worked with researchers who were looking at getting the youth unemployed in Finland back to work/into work. Lots of great ideas put into practice in the labour office, all geared towards a bit of stick and a bit of carrot. They were called ‘activation policies’. And you do you know the single biggest fact that lies behind their ‘failure’? It doesn’t matter how much you ‘activate’ young people to search harder or produce a better CV or present themselves more effectively, if the jobs are NOT there, they cannot get them.

      And yet the entire debate around youth unemployment has stalled on the idea of ‘individualising’ the problem – that the key thing is that there is something wrong with the individuals – too lazy, not educated enough, not hard working enough etc.. Such insulting and degrading explanations serve political ends, but they don’t reflect on the ground realities. During that research in Finland, many interviews were made of labour exchange staff, those who actually worked with the young people trying to help them. Many of them remarked that the approach of the government put too much blame on the individuals when there simply were not enough jobs to go around or not enough that would allow a young and mainly inexperienced worker to take up.

      My point here was simply to illustrate how I as a finn feel everytime you go through here issues where the roles are reserved.

      And why can we not represent the views of immigrants? Why do you want to coerce us into adopting a ‘Finnish’ way of seeing things, where every day a crime is thrown in our face, our culture is mocked, you talk about us wanting to ban pork, or get more wives, or rape kids in the name of religion etc. You are just a very hostile person, Farang, and I am just totally unconvinced that you are just expressing some mild-mannered concern for ‘better integration’.

  11. Farang

    I’ve no sympathy for you. I’m a fair person, Farang, and I’ve no axe to grind to with or anyone. So the fact that little by little you have turned me against you and left me feeling that you are pretty despicable as a human being is quite an achievement and one you have succeeded at entirely on your own efforts.

    Did it ever occur to you that I may have done that on purpose? To see if you are capable of discussing the issues here regardless of who is presenting the opinions? Even when I don’t like your discussion style at all, I still respect you as a person and I treat your opinions regardless of what I feel about you. I even give you respect as you seem to be very good at presenting arguments and backing them up with facts.

    That’s the difference between us. I don’t mix feelings with issues. I would be totally capable of debating calmfully even with a person that I would hate most in this world. But I don’t see that very often here in Migrant Tales. Usually everything comes back to the person who presented the stuff: If it’s from Halla-aho or Immonen, it must be crap even without reading it.

    Think about that for a moment.

    • Mark

      Farang

      If it’s from Halla-aho or Immonen, it must be crap even without reading it.

      Okay, I thought about it. It’s not true. Read my piece on Halla-aho’s ‘treatise’ on human dignity. I didn’t just say it was crap. I weighed up his arguments, their strengths and their weaknesses. My conclusion was that he was simply wrong. And worse than that, he was inconsistent.

      Did it ever occur to you that I may have done that on purpose?

      Let me see now – did it occur to me that you were trying to deliberately provoke me with ridiculous and outrageous statements? Ugh, yes! But now you are saying that it was all done to ‘test’ us. Well fuck you! Who are you to come here and ‘test’ the foreigners by making provocative and hostile comments? I don’t like to be a drama queen, but I am an emotional person, and I do feel disgust. When someone starts to blame women for rape, accuse women of faking rape to such an extent that it would seriously skew statistics, calls the most significant human rights legislation ever created ‘bullshit’, justifies torture, and tells me with total certainty that statistics NEVER lie, then I am left thinking this guy is a fucking arsehole of the highest order. And I really don’t see why I should bother to hold back on the way I feel about you. I’m a down-to-earth working class man. I say it how I see it.

      I don’t care that you are ‘calm’. That to me, given what you ACTUALLY say, the hostility in it, the highly selective nature of it, the ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to understand the other person’s arguments, this sounds like the behaviour of a passive-aggressive! So, tell yourself you haven’t done anything wrong. I’m sure you believe it 100%.

  12. Farang

    Mark

    Ugh, yes! But now you are saying that it was all done to ‘test’ us. Well fuck you! Who are you to come here and ‘test’ the foreigners by making provocative and hostile comments? I don’t like to be a drama queen, but I am an emotional person, and I do feel disgust.

    You are emphasizing my point. People can never have sensible and fact based discussion on important matters if they let their feelings affect the process.

    When someone starts to blame women for rape

    I have NEVER accused women of rape. Rape is always they fault of the rapist and rapist only. The victim is never responsible of rape. Did you get that? Do I need to repeat one more time?

    Why do you always have to make those accusations of me saying something totally opposite that what I have actually said.

    BUT, if there is a case where a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, then that is the fault of the woman. These things happen too, you can’t close your eyes and pretend they don’t.

    justifies torture

    I pretty clearly explained this through. If you have a murdered and you could save 100 innocent lives by torturing the information out from him, then why wouldn’t you allow it?

    In right circumstances, any person with common sense understands that torturing is justified. Only a fool would say absolute no to it. A fool who things that murderer’s rights are more valuable than lives of innocent people.

    And this then follows straight to the human rights issue. I also explained my view on that. And it is because it defines the same rights also for murderer and other people who have violated innocent people’s human rights.

    But you always leave these explanations and facts out and just want to call me “a person who justifies torture and say human rights are bullshit” because you can make me look bad with it. You do exactly the same as you always condemn your opponent of doing. That is hypocracy.

    • Mark

      Farang

      You are emphasizing my point. People can never have sensible and fact based discussion on important matters if they let their feelings affect the process.

      You are the one that makes ridiculous and persistent use of the word NEVER. It is perfectly possible to allow feelings into a process of rational thinking and exploration of the facts. But, I can well see how a person who is an emotional retard would rationalise their emotional illiteracy into some kind of positive. For the record, the evidence of decades of psychology research completely contradicts your ridiculously dated opinion that ’emtional’ people are incapable of rational conversation. They said that about women for centuries. I guess you completely fail to appreciate that fact, in just the same way you completely overlook the sensitivities of discussions of rape.

      The victim is never responsible of rape.

      And yet you still argued that rather than focus on telling men not to rape, you prefer to tell women what to wear. I know you are trying hard to recover some credibility on this issue with the above statement, but that horse bolted long ago, Farang.

      In right circumstances, any person with common sense understands that torturing is justified.

      The fact that you begin to justify your argument for torture with an obvious fallacy does not bode well, Farang. Saying that if someone does not agree with the idea that torture is justified is obviously lacking ‘common sense’ is a very basic fallacy, related to the ad hominen. So much for being above all that, eh! Fucking hypocrite.

      At no point have you dealt with the key arguments against torture, which is that it is notoriously unreliable, it corrupts the officials carrying it out and dehumanises the State that sanctions it, while also violating the human rights of individuals. Moreover, you have sanctioned torture even in situations where a person’s guilt has not even been established. You rely on some notion of ‘truth’ that police or government officials have by some unexplained miracle.

      Only a fool would say absolute no to it.

      More completely fallacious arguments. You’ve been watching too much 24.

      A fool who things that murderer’s rights are more valuable than lives of innocent people.

      And you follow up one fallacy with another: a straw man. Respecting the human rights of criminals (with the exception of their right to freedom) is not saying their rights are ‘more’ valuable than ‘innocent people’. That is a false argument. The value is exactly the same. You still don’t realise that abusing someone else’s rights violates not just their rights, but violates the moral authority of the agency that sanctions that violation. You have not dealt with this point, even though it’s been clearly presented to you over and over in these debates. And still you pretend that you are ‘winning’ the debate. lololol Such self-deception.

      But you always leave these explanations and facts out

      Facts? So your opinions are facts now, are they? You have not presented any facts, merely opinion, supported mostly by obvious fallacies.

      just want to call me “a person who justifies torture and say human rights are bullshit” because you can make me look bad with it.

      Except for the fact that you do justify torture and call human rights bullshit. I don’t care too much for your ‘explanations’. They certainly don’t convince me, so yes, I do think these opinions make you look bad and I will take the effort to point it out.

      You do exactly the same as you always condemn your opponent of doing.

      And there is the absolute once again. Followed by your ‘fall-back’ tactic, which is to attempt to find some way to, however outrageously false, to reverse the accusations made against you. My charge to you is that you do things that constantly try to make immigrants look bad. You did this today, as well, by posting yet another media report where the culprits were immigrants, as if this would justify all your negativity towards immigration. This is what you DO, Farang. You try to make immigration and multiculturalism ‘look’ bad, and you do it not by talking about actual experiences of people, of talking to immigrants. You do it through cherrypicking media stories. You DO this, constantly, on this site. You defend other people that do this. You say it’s all in the name of free speech, but what about the simple issue of ‘being friendly and polite to strangers’? No, you are a hostile person, pretending to yourself that you are being purely rational, and yet you are clearly filled with anger and hostility towards immigrants. And you pretent that emotions cannot be allowed to inform the debate? Good luck with that. I think you’ve missed a fucking big one there!

  13. Farang

    Mark

    And yet you still argued that rather than focus on telling men not to rape, you prefer to tell women what to wear.

    I’m not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding this. As long as there are rapists out there and we haven’t got rid of them, there is nothing wrong in giving women advice on how to avoid the situations where a rapist could attack them. That doesn’t make rape woman’s fault.

    More completely fallacious arguments. You’ve been watching too much 24.

    Seen every episode, several times 🙂 Best documentary ever.

    But you always leave these explanations and facts out

    Facts? So your opinions are facts now, are they? You have not presented any facts, merely opinion, supported mostly by obvious fallacies.

    Did you see the word “and”?

    Part of those were my explanations and part of them were facts. Actually the facts were the facts that I have provided further explanation.

    My charge to you is that you do things that constantly try to make immigrants look bad. You did this today, as well, by posting yet another media report where the culprits were immigrants, as if this would justify all your negativity towards immigration.

    Now this is getting interesting. I only posted a news which stated real events that happened in Finland. Now, if that makes immigrants look bad, whose fault is it? Is it my fault, because I delivered the information?

    Hypocracy rises it’s head again. If some PS member does something negative, you are the first ones to report it. Why don’t you think that in those cases it would be you (or who ever posts it) who is making PS look bad? Delivering news is never making anyone look bad, as long as the news is correct and truthful.

    This is basically the fundamental issue that I don’t like in Migrant Tales. You have double standards. You have different standards and rules which depend on whether the people in the news/report are finns or immigrants and what their role are.

    Like if a finn does X and you report it, you say it’s totally ok.
    But if an immigrant does exactly same x and someone reports it, you say it’s bashing immigrants.

    I have nothing against immigrants and I have no intentions or reasons to make them look bad.

    As a summary: Migrant Tales would serve the immigrants much better, if it would throw the double standards to trash bin and starts treating people as equal and individuals, whether they were immigrants or MP’s of PS.

    • Mark

      Farang

      there is nothing wrong in giving women advice on how to avoid the situations where a rapist could attack them.

      Well, according to women there is. And it’s not like I didn’t try to explain it to you, but still you refused to open your ears! And that is what makes you a scumbag in my eyes. And YES, you are passing responsibility on to women for rape, for all your protests, if the target of your campaign message is women and not men, when it’s obviously men who are the problem. Until you reverse that policy of yours, you are on the side of the rapists!

      While you prefer to draw attention to ‘false rape allegations’ as if that was a serious problem affecting rape statistics, then you put yourself in with the Men’s Rights movement, opposed to feminism and any social gains in freedom for women. It’s just one excuse after another to justify men being in charge. Let me take a guess, you also think that women’s violence against men is a very serious issue and should be mentioned every time we are trying to deal with men’s violence agaist women?

      You supplied no facts to go with your argument. The point still stands.

      Is it my fault, because I delivered the information?

      You are a racist. That’s the only conclusion left for someone that smears immigrants at every turn and then defends it by saying ‘I’m just giving information’.

      PS members are politicians lobbying and campaigning for political power. Criminals are what they are, people who have broken the law. Some criminals happen to be PS members too, but you suggest that this is no more news than the latest robbery in Helsinki. There is no equivalence. Not even close. One is politics and is and should be criticised. The other is crime, which cannot and should not be turned into an ‘ethnicity’ issue.

      This is basically the fundamental issue that I don’t like in Migrant Tales.

      Migrant Tales reports on issues affecting immigrants. That gets up your nose?

      You have different standards and rules which depend on whether the people in the news/report are finns or immigrants and what their role are.

      There is no ‘standard’ here. We report on issues affecting immigrants. It’s that simple. This is NOT done to make Finns look more criminal than immigrants. This is not done to even make Finns look more racist than immigrants, assuming that the majority of racism can actually work effectively in both directions, which it cannot. However, when you report on ‘immigrant crime’, that is exactly what you are trying to do, to suggest immigrants are more criminal based on ethnicity. Why else would you feel the need to share that information?

      Or is it just a childish game with you Farang, that you are so personally insulted when a foreigner dares to criticize Finland that you just have to find ways to poke your finger back at the foreigner and say ‘but you do horrible things too!’ If you expect us to take that seriously, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

      What you seem to forget is that we are married to Finns. Our children are Finns. And many of the immigrants we represent consider themselves Finns too. This is not about ‘us vs. them’, immigrants versus Finns. This is about reporting on issues that affect immigrants, particularly intolerance and racism, and especially politically motivated justifications for prejudice.

      As a summary: Migrant Tales would serve the immigrants much better, if it would throw the double standards to trash bin and starts treating people as equal and individuals, whether they were immigrants or MP’s of PS.

      Says the man who comes here to defend convicted racists, extremist politicians, neo-Nazis and rapists!

  14. Farang

    Well, according to women there is. And it’s not like I didn’t try to explain it to you, but still you refused to open your ears! And that is what makes you a scumbag in my eyes. And YES, you are passing responsibility on to women for rape, for all your protests, if the target of your campaign message is women and not men, when it’s obviously men who are the problem. Until you reverse that policy of yours, you are on the side of the rapists!

    Let’s say you have a big problem A, which needs to be fixed, but you don’t have solution for the problem yet. Now, while this problem A is present, there are workaround solutions which prevents experiencing this problem. Now, if someone gives advice on these workaround solutions, how could you claim that this would mean that this someone approves problem A? Makes no sense at all.

    And as you said “according to women there is”, that is just not true. That comment is given by feminist idiots, who just don’t understand what it means.

    If your car’s gearbox has one gear that is not working and if that gear is used, it would break the whole car. Now, until you get that gearbox repaired, I could give you instructions how to skip that faulty gear so you could use that car even when it is not repaired yet. Would you consider that if I gave you those instructions, it would mean that I accept that your gearbox is broken?

    • Mark

      Farang

      Now, if someone gives advice on these workaround solutions, how could you claim that this would mean that this someone approves problem A? Makes no sense at all.

      That’s because you are only seeing a small part of the picture. It’s not just that there is a problem A and there is no solution yet. There is a solution, but men don’t want to implement it.

      It involves giving more rights and protection to women. It means higher arrest rates. It means making rape inside marriage illegal. It makes coming forward easier. It makes sentencing tougher. It means men accepting that there is a problem and not hiding behind low reporting rates. It means the police not watering down sentencing by reducting ‘aggravated’ charges. These are the issues you do not address.

      Now, your solution B is not without problems. That is because solution B shifts responsibility on to women – women are asked to change their behaviour. That is unacceptable. Women are told to avoid rape, and nothing is said to men. Nothing.

      So, while solution B may have some practical merit, the negatives outweigh the positives, because it becomes the ‘default’ position on how to tackle the rape issue. Just how much longer do we have to wait for an effective Solution A? And why bother if we have a working Solution B? In other words, it makes Solution A, the real solution, that much less likely to come about.

      So, time to put your fingers in your ears and go “blah, blah, blah”, because someone just made a perfectly well-reasonded argument that reveals your own argument to be shallow and inadequate.

      That comment is given by feminist idiots, who just don’t understand what it means.

      You do realise that what you offer here is not an argument? You are just calling them names. Can you please take the time to actually say why you think these women are wrong rather than calling them names?

      If your car’s gearbox has one gear that is not working and if that gear is used, it would break the whole car.

      Now you are comparing the rape of women to the breakdown of a car?

      Farang, you just dig yourself in deeper every time you comment on this topic.

  15. Farang

    Mark

    That comment is given by feminist idiots, who just don’t understand what it means.

    You do realise that what you offer here is not an argument? You are just calling them names. Can you please take the time to actually say why you think these women are wrong rather than calling them names?

    Take a good look of what I wrote. The argument is there before the comma (,) and the why is there after the comma (,).

    I call them idiots because they can’t understand the meaning of a simple thing.

    They are only concentrating on the facts that a) they should be allowed to wear what ever they want to wear and b) they should be allowed to walk where ever they want to walk. They don’t realize that nobody is claiming otherwise. They are free and allowed to do both of the things. They are only given advice that there are rapists out there that society hasn’t been able to remove so if they want to increase their safety, they could try to avoid doing thing which could make them vulnerable.

    Your problem is that you can’t separate these two things and you have this need to combine them. Getting rid of rapists is one thing and avoiding rapists is another thing. If we can’t get rid of them, then we must avoid them, simple as that.

    As soon as the main problem is fixed, eg. we get rid of rapists, then we don’t need to avoid them anymore.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Take a good look of what I wrote. The argument is there before the comma (,) and the why is there after the comma (,).

      Saying women don’t understand is also not an argument. It’s an empty statement unless you say what it is they ‘don’t understand’. A sensible person might also do some work to explain the reason for the misunderstanding. But I doubt you’ll go the extra mile there.

      I call them idiots because they can’t understand the meaning of a simple thing.

      Calling women who campaign against rape idiots doesn’t attract many friends, Farang.

      a) they should be allowed to wear what ever they want to wear and b) they should be allowed to walk where ever they want to walk. They don’t realize that nobody is claiming otherwise.

      I see. First point, most rape does not take place in the street, but in people’s homes. But we’ll let that go for now.

      if they want to increase their safety, they could try to avoid doing thing which could make them vulnerable.

      And those things would be to avoid wearing what they want and restrict where they go in public places?

      Ugh…hang on, didn’t you just say no-one is asking them to do otherwise?

      Farang. You just contradicted yourself. Either you are saying women should wear what they want and walk where they want or they should not. Which is it?

      Your problem is that you can’t separate these two things and you have this need to combine them

      I have already said there is merit in the argument for solution B. Surely that is proof enough that I can separate these things? The issue is not that solution B does not have merit. Women are capable of exercising caution and reasoning Farang and for taking responsibility for their safety. It is not something that they should be TOLD to do by judges, police officials and men. When these people, who are responsible for implementing solution A start complaining because solution B is not being implemented, women start to say, hang a fucking minute! Why is Solution B the only thing that is being talked about and why are women being blamed when solution B doesn’t work?

      Getting rid of rapists

      Unfortunate choice of words. But it does illustrate your blockheaded understanding of this issue. Getting rid of rapists will not get rid of rape. Getting rid assumes that the response is something that comes after the fact, like a doctor treating a patient after a life time of self-abuse. The issue is not ‘treatment’ but prevention. Your representation of the problem as a simple choice between two alternatives ‘get rid of rapists’ or ‘avoid them’ is false. You can also work to reduce the likelihood of men becoming rapists. That is the part you fail to appreciate or even acknowledge.

      As soon as the main problem is fixed, eg. we get rid of rapists, then we don’t need to avoid them anymore.

      What is your solution for ‘getting rid of rapists’`, by the way?

  16. Farang

    Mark

    Now, your solution B is not without problems. That is because solution B shifts responsibility on to women – women are asked to change their behaviour. That is unacceptable. Women are told to avoid rape, and nothing is said to men. Nothing.

    This is where your ignorance comes to light 🙂

    How can you say “nothing is said to men”? If something is said to women, that is totally separate issue. If something is said to women, it doesn’t mean that nothing is said to men. You just don’t understand that even if these advice are given to women, there is also other issues going on to fix the actual problem.

    Rape is a crime. How can you expect that we get rid of that crime, if we can’t get rid of other crimes? What makes rape any special case?

    There are bad people who commit crimes, we can’t prevent every crime.

    First step would be to get tougher sentences for rapes. In Finland’s justice system rapists rarely get jail time. They always get probation. If women defends herself from rapist, she will get tougher punishment than the rapist. It all boils down to justice system.

    There was one case, where a woman defended herself from a rapist by hitting rapist with a knife. Rapist died and this woman was sentenced to jail. What do you say about that?

    • Mark

      Farang

      If something is said to women, it doesn’t mean that nothing is said to men.

      In our last debate about this, I specifically suggested that public officials initiate a campaign of talking to men about rape. You REFUSED to even believe for a second that that would be successful in any way. You basically said it was not going to work, don’t do it. Now you are telling me you have changed your mind?

      Name me a single public male politician, police official or judge who has publicly campaigned for men to stop raping?

      Not only that, but in this discussion, you have said NOTHING to men. That was part of my problem with you. You put all the responsibility on women. In your own words, you have said nothing about Solution A.

      Rape is a crime. How can you expect that we get rid of that crime, if we can’t get rid of other crimes? What makes rape any special case?

      Right on cue! So no point working on Solution A because ‘we cannot get rid of crime’. So what is left? Solution B.

      My question for you is ‘can we reduce crime’? Can we prevent crime? Can we make certain ‘crimes’ (i.e. behaviours) more socially unacceptable?

      What is with you and the ‘bad people’ thing? Rapists are for the most part ordinary people – fathers, brothers, husbands. They work, they have friends, they contribute to society. And they rape. And they dismiss rape as just ‘she’s playing hard to get’, or ‘she enjoys it really’, or ‘she uses sex as a weapon against me, and I won’t let that happen’, or ‘she’s my wife, it’s my right!’. They don’t think they are being bad. They rationalise it so that it doesn’t appear as rape at all, just part of the game of sex.

      So rather than challenge these attitudes and rationalisations, you prefer to simply label them ‘bad people’ and ship them off to prison for life? Not that this will have much affect given that women are often terrorised or coerced by society’s double standard into not reporting rape. After all, the first question will be, why didn’t you implement solution B?

      Rapist died and this woman was sentenced to jail. What do you say about that?

      I’d say that was harsh. Can you give more details? What did the judge say when sentencing her?

      As a moral question, I would say that a ‘death sentence’ is not an appropriate punishment for rape. However, some freedom for ‘self-defence’ would seem to be reasonable.

      So, having mentioned this case, my guess is that your answer to solution A is all to do with sentencing. Rapists put in jail for life. Problem solved, in Farang’s authoritarian and totalitarian mind! What a little egomaniac you are! 🙂

  17. Farang

    Mark

    Farang. You just contradicted yourself. Either you are saying women should wear what they want and walk where they want or they should not. Which is it?

    You are doing some kind of selective reading.

    Is said they are ALLOWED to do what they want.
    And in order to avoid rapists they SHOULD/COULD do something else.

    Do you understand it now?

    • Mark

      Farang

      Is said they are ALLOWED to do what they want.
      And in order to avoid rapists they SHOULD/COULD do something else.

      So, you basically refuse to see that you are contradicting yourself? Women should be allowed to wear what they would, but they should also not wear what they want, if they want to avoid being raped.

      I guess there is enough ‘stick’ in that choice to mean the basic outcome will be reduced rights and freedom for women. But, in Farang’s world, you will not even recognise or acknowledge this reduced freedom. Fingers in ears – “blah, blah, blah!”

  18. Farang

    Mark

    It is not something that they should be TOLD to do by judges, police officials and men. When these people, who are responsible for implementing solution A start complaining because solution B is not being implemented, women start to say, hang a fucking minute! Why is Solution B the only thing that is being talked about and why are women being blamed when solution B doesn’t work?

    Men have no more responsibility to implement this solution than women.

    You are now accusing men collectively on rape. That is not the case. Men are not responsible of rape. Rapists are responsible of rape.

    Also, nobody is blaming women because of solution B.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Men have no more responsibility to implement this solution than women.

      I beg your fucking pardon?! So, rape is 99% the actions of men, but men are no more responsible for preventing rape than women?

      You are now accusing men collectively on rape.

      Why do you use the word ‘accuse’? It’s the wrong word.

      Men are collectively responsible for preventing rape. Yes.

      Men are not responsible of rape. Rapists are responsible of rape.

      And rapists just happen to be men. As if by accident. But let’s pretend that masculine attitudes and values have NOTHING to do with the reasons for rape. It’s all about ‘bad’ people.

      Fingers in ears – “blah, blah, blah”!

  19. Farang

    Mark

    You can also work to reduce the likelihood of men becoming rapists. That is the part you fail to appreciate or even acknowledge.

    That is not anymore possible than reducing likelihood of anyone becoming a criminal.

    I already told you, if sentences of rape were tougher, then those people would think twice before raping someone. But that is the fault of the people who are in government. Propably the same people you have voted for.

    • Mark

      Farang

      That is not anymore possible than reducing likelihood of anyone becoming a criminal.

      Your evidence, please!? Your evidence that preventing crime is not possible? Your explanation for why various public crime prevention policies over many decades have proved successful in reducing crime? Pure accident? Corrupt researchers?

      then those people would think twice before raping someone.

      So, sentencing as a deterrent. That’s it. No work on prevention, only ‘treatment’, in the hope that will be detterent. Nothing else can be done. And the fact that 90% of rape is unreported will just have to be left alone!?

      Probably the same people you have voted for.

      Because of course you voted for PS.

  20. Farang

    Mark

    What is with you and the ‘bad people’ thing? Rapists are for the most part ordinary people – fathers, brothers, husbands. They work, they have friends, they contribute to society. And they rape. And they dismiss rape as just ‘she’s playing hard to get’, or ‘she enjoys it really’, or ‘she uses sex as a weapon against me, and I won’t let that happen’, or ‘she’s my wife, it’s my right!’. They don’t think they are being bad. They rationalise it so that it doesn’t appear as rape at all, just part of the game of sex.

    You are right. I have only concentrated here on the rape cases where a rapist unknown to the victim attacks and rapes woman out there is some public place.

    The rapes you mention here are another case and yes, to those cases the campaigns would definitely help.

    I recently read a poll done for high school student and it was very worrying as very big percentage of the students (both male and female) answered that forcing a woman to sex is ok in certain situations. I will get you a link later today when I get back home.

    I beg your fucking pardon?! So, rape is 99% the actions of men, but men are no more responsible for preventing rape than women?

    A man who has never raped anyone is not responsible of some other man raping someone.

    Men are collectively responsible for preventing rape. Yes.

    This is where I have to disagree. Men can’t be collectively held responsible of other mens actions.

    For how long?

    For life.

    • Mark

      Farang

      A man who has never raped anyone is not responsible of some other man raping someone.

      A man who does not assualt a woman is not responsible for the assaults of other men. Let’s not twist words here. Men are responsible for working to prevent rape. Why? Because it is masculinity that is largely the source of the problem, and all men contribute to that ‘collective’ identity in some way. Sexual instincts are strong and all pervasive. They work differently for the sexes, no question. Women can indulge recreational sex or look for a good breeder, and select different qualities in different men. The same for men when it comes to women. Men’s sexual appetite is tied up also in their sense of ‘potency’, and this has a lot to do with masculinity and feelings of power. Power and coercian are always close and the dangers of using power to coerce or even to overwhelm have to be offset by a very clear societal moral framework that condemns such behaviours.

      For life.

      I guess you think this will be a deterrent, even though you are not sure about whether men can actually be prevented from raping. There is very little evidence that suggests ‘criminals’ consider detterents when committing crime. Most crime, and this includes rape, are ‘spontaneous’. They are not planned. The problem remains if only 10% of rapes are being reported.

      Calling for life sentences for rapists will not work. It will fill up the jails. And in jail, men will rape other men instead. Who cares? Well, we all should care. Some of those people will be coming back into society at some point – perhaps damaged forever.

      The rapes you mention here are another case and yes, to those cases the campaigns would definitely help.

      Good. Some progress on the issue. Thank you for having an open mind.

      I have only concentrated here on the rape cases where a rapist unknown to the victim attacks and rapes woman out there is some public place.

      This kind of rape is extremely rare. Date rape and rape inside relationships are far far more common.

  21. Farang

    This kind of rape is extremely rare. Date rape and rape inside relationships are far far more common.

    OK. I have been looking at this problem from totally wrong angle. I see that now.

    • Mark

      Farang

      OK. I have been looking at this problem from totally wrong angle. I see that now.

      Okay. But forgive me if I don’t feel like breaking out the champagne!

      I guess this leaves the issue of torture and issues of human rights as outstanding issues. That and your defence or extremists, racists and fascists. I will take the ‘rapists’ off the list given that you appear to have exercised an open mind on the issue of blame and responsibility in the issue of rape.

      I do consider it a big thing that you have openly changed your mind. It is very rare in internet discussions for someone to do this. But I really don’t know if it is just a ‘maneovre’. It is a very tiresome style of debate if you just take a radicalised position so as to force the other person to make explicit arguments.

      One impression I am still left with though. Now that you have ‘changed your viewpoint’, so that you see this from another angle…suddenly the conversation seems to have stopped. It is as if the topic is not important to you anymore. I would have thought a new viewpoint would bring an eagerness to explore and to describe that ‘new knowledge’. On the contrary, in this case, it seems you wanted to use it as a full stop on the conversation. I find that a little odd and counterintuitive.

      And having left so many personal attacks during this discussion with me, against women, against those campaigning for better rights for women and those campaigning for men to support women in calling for an end to rape, it is probably impossible to forget. You are not an important person in this debate, but you are an ordinary Joe. The nature of the discussion was so negative that even though we have now found some ground for agreement, the motivation and trust remain absent.

      If you were to take a more cautious approach, seeking to open up the debate rather than gatecrash it, then perhaps when we do arrive at some understanding, there will be more reason to think that the effort was worth it. Basically, I’m willing to wipe the slate clean on our previous conversations Farang, if I thought you were sincere about trying to get to the bottom of arguments rather than merely trade insults or arguments. It’s not about agreeing – it’s about discussing without using fallacious arguments.

      I cannot help but feel that you have an agenda. Maybe it’s as simple as rationalising the fact that you voted for a populist party. But I think it’s more than that. I think you have gained ‘solidarity’ through sharing these arguments with others, and that ‘loyalty’ to that group clouds your judgement. I do not have those loyalties. That is not in itself proof my arguments are all true, but it does mean that the idea you seem to have of me representing some leftist multiculti ideology or MT conspiracy against Finns is false.

      Let’s try to get towards the evidence and past the evidence, to see the strengths and weaknesses of arguments better, rather than the ‘this proves what an idiot you are’ style of debating. Fair enough?

  22. Farang

    Mark

    I guess this leaves the issue of torture and issues of human rights as outstanding issues. That and your defence or extremists, racists and fascists.

    I don’t defend them. I only defend their right for free speech, but as soon as they start to attack people, I draw the line there.

    I have kind of a “mixed” stand on violence. I condemn violence, except I approve usage of violence against criminals who have violated innocent people.

    I have to admit that I am not familiar with any extremists groups and what they are doing. I have only followed what some individuals have done, for example Halla-aho and Immonen. So far I haven’t seen any attack against any ethnic groups by them.

    One impression I am left with though. Now that you have ‘changed your viewpoint’, so that you see this from another angle…suddenly the conversation seems to have stopped. It is as if the topic is not important to you anymore.

    It’s not stopped. It’s just during working hours I don’t have time to write here all the time.

    This is very important to me. And the poll I showed you actually got me very concerned about the situation. This kind of education definitely must be done already in schools. If that kind of poll would be done with Finnish students, the target for yes-answers should be definite 0 % for all the sections there.

    That report was from USA, but I would definitely like to see what the results would be from Finland. I will contact my teacher friend to see if anyone is interested to push this in schools and if they would allow similar kind of poll to be done.

    • Mark

      Farang

      I don’t defend them. I only defend their right for free speech, but as soon as they start to attack people, I draw the line there.

      Well, perhaps I have to find a different way to present the arguments to you that deals more effectively with the questions related to free speech, with which I am very familiar and interested in.

      except I approve usage of violence against criminals who have violated innocent people.

      My guess is that your opinion on this will evolve. Two wrongs do not make a right. There should be clear standards for how the State can treat citizens. The lesson of history is that without those standards, the State all too easily exploits deviations in the standard as a pretext for political and social persecution.

      I have to admit that I am not familiar with any extremists groups and what they are doing.

      I have been studying extremism for 30 years. I’m not an academic on the subject, but I have been involved through various people and organisations, including being familiar with the psychological rehabilitation of people caught up in extremist movements. I’m familiar with the effects of brainwashing, of community level coercion and of the rigidity of personal conviction built on ‘the politics of emotion’. These issues are often subtle. The motives of those involved in the issues are often ambiguous. I’m interested in how people are influenced by narratives and narrative-based ideologies. By that, I mean that the ‘factual’ level is often of very little importance; it is completely subsumed under the cohesion of and need to belong to the group. Marginalisation, isolation and even personality fragmentation typically ensue.

      Look, I’m just saying that perhaps you should realise that there are many other issues here in this discussion than pure ‘free speech’ issues, and an open mind to them may in fact help in expanding your understanding of the free speech issues. After all, it’s not an easy topic at the best of times.

      This is very important to me.

      I’m glad to hear that.

Leave a Reply