Joutsen puolue in Finland – old suspicions die hard

by , under All categories, Enrique

It is always a healthy matter when new parties emerge and take part in the debate on immigrants in Finland. One of these is the so-called Joutsen puolue (Swan Party) being spearheaded by Jussi Halla-aho, who is presently standing trial for incitement of hatred against an ethnic group and defamation of a religion.

In order to find out what a party really thinks, try to see what they deny. This becomes clear in a post by Juha Mäki-Ketelä, who is spearheading the creation of the new party. Mäki-Ketelä was also recently on a television program with lawyer Hussein Muhammed.

Below are two comments by Mäki-Ketelä in Vihreä Lanka that caught my eye about the new party: (1) ..[it is] direct democracy and not a criticism of immigration (…se on nimenomaa suora demokratia eikä maahanmuuton kritiikki); (2) We do not oppose all immigration. We are only opposed to immigration that is harmful to Finland and Finns…(Emme vastusta kaikkea maahanmuuttoa. Vastustamme ainoastaan Suomelle ja suomalaisille haitallista maahanmuuttoa…).

Before commenting on the above, the formation of the Joutsen puoluen party exposes, in my opinion, the rifts in the populist right. We have the Perussuomalaiset, who are a bit shy officially about their views on immigration because they don’t want to see themselves as a “far-right party,” while the new party in formation claims the same thing but will be more “critical” about the issue.

I am a bit offended by the first affirmation. Mäki-Ketelä suggests that most Finns are so stupid that they do not even know that they are being taken for a ride by the big established parties. Freedom of speech, in their opinion, means a one-way street to insult and bash other religions and cultures wholesale in the name of “liberty.” Like a frenzied lynch mob, they will decide what is good for us.

The second phrase is a gem: “We are only opposed to immigration that is harmful to Finland and Finns.” What does that mean? Does he mean refugees or immigrants? What is “harmful.” Why doesn’t he specify? If they are not against immigration, why do they bring this issue over and over again?

The irony, however, of all this is that the Joutsen puolue will do their best to give you a totally different image of itself by mixing double-talk into their politics.

Even though every group has valid arguments in the debate on immigrants and refugees in Finland, we have to go a bit further and ask how do their actions undermine our sense of society and exclude others?

If we look at parties in the far right in Europe and new ones being created in Finland, it is clear that their aim is to fuel a narrow-minded agenda flavored with messianic overtones which could be pictured in the following manner: A man holding a knife at a person’s throat and asking him why he hasn’t learned enough Finnish?!

  1. Tony Garcia

    Hola Enrique,

    What a coincidence, I just posted about Mäki-Ketelä’s new party and now you right about it. But let me tell you something…

    From an Immigrant to another, from a Latino to another,

    If I have to choose… If I really have to make a choice between the Ultra-Right and the people this reckless immigration policy is allowing in Finland. Honestly for the sake of my children I’ll take my changes with the right.

    That’s not what I really wish but it’s, by far, the lesser of two evils.

    • Enrique

      –That’s not what I really wish but it’s, by far, the lesser of two evils.

      That is your choice and I respect it. However, if we are really honest with each other, how is it possible that a country with only about 2.5% of the population is foreign, is causing such a huge commotion? That is one thing that I cannot understand.

  2. intternetnetsi

    “(1) ..[the aim of the new party] is to further democracy and is not a direct criticism of immigration (…se on nimenomaa suora demokratia eikä maahanmuuton kritiikki);”

    Dont lie in your translations.

    • Enrique

      Hannu, be my guest if you can offer a better translation. And, hey, isn’t that quite harsh accusing me of “lying?”

  3. Tony Garcia

    “how is it possible that a country with only about 2.5% of the population is foreign, is causing such a huge commotion? That is one thing that I cannot understand.”

    I think it’s very simple, everyone can see what’s happening in other countries with large number of Africans and Muslims, so they(we) are saying NO before it happens to Finland.

    Did you see that Sweden faced again another wild weekend of firebombing and burning cars? It was just 2 weeks ago. That’s becoming a national sport already.

    They(we) just don’t want this in their country and who can blame them(us)? I do understand that…

  4. intternetnetsi

    “Hannu, be my guest if you can offer a better translation. And, hey, isn’t that quite harsh accusing me of “lying?””

    No its not harsh when you lie.

    Correct translation is “its direct democracy and not critisism of immigration”

    You added “direct” in last part and changed “direct” to “more” in first part so its lying.

    • Enrique

      –No its not harsh when you lie.

      Why would I want to lie about something that your party (?) wants to put out? It makes no sense. Just to show you that I am a fair person, I changed it before your comment.

  5. intternetnetsi

    Its not my party, im free roaming voter and you clearly lied so i think its good to call a lie when you see one.
    You still have lie in your translations. There is no “direct” in “critisism of immigration” You lie.

  6. intternetnetsi

    Also seems you support non good immigration what have caused unrepairable effects in sweden and france. Do you want rioting leftists in here?
    You are worried about right wing when left wing do real damage against democracy.
    Do you really want that politicians are attacked or killed?

    • Enrique

      –Also seems you support non good immigration what have caused unrepairable effects in sweden and france. Do you want rioting leftists in here?

      Yes, Hannu, you are right. You hold the magic wand and know what is good and bad for Finland. The country you are describing is closer to North Korea. A vibrant society comprises of many opinions — not one.

  7. intternetnetsi

    I see countries going closer and closer of north korea, i dont see you defending what is called western society.
    I see leftist wanting to close all discussion and you supporting it. I see leftists assaultig politicians and i see leftist wanting quiet on one of most important questions.

    I have seen immigrants attack on finnish womans because they are “whores” when they dont use islamic dress.
    I have seen immigrants tell that finnish womans are worthless and unmarriable. Just whores.
    I have seen immigrants telling that finnish males are worthless like jews. And like jews they are killed if they wont bend and pay tax to muslims.
    I have seen direct attacks by immigrants without excuse on gays.
    Should i be quiet? And not tell what is really happening?

    We have a problem, we have groving part of society who dont like our freedoms and part in society who appease anything they say because they are “different”.

    There shouldnt be any restrictions on speak, they are assholes even if they are minority. Being minority dont give a right to be an asshole.

    • Enrique

      –I see countries going closer and closer of north korea, i dont see you defending what is called western society.

      Wow Hannu, I am sorry that you feel that way. Why all the hatred? Doesn’t that distort your view of things? Do you have any idea what is western society? Maybe you have lived too long with a silver spoon in your mouth and have no empathy for others. The good life has spoiled you. I lived through a dictatorship in Argentina in 1977-78 and I know what it means to live under the gun, literally speaking. I also lived and worked in Colombia where they have been fighting a civil war for 50 years… I can give you more examples. So don’t insult me and tell me that I do not know what western society is.
      I truly think it is you who does not understand that time has gone by and we live in a different world. Western society is where you live today with all its beauty and ugliness.

  8. Referee

    First of all, Jussi Halla-aho is not “spearheading” the new party.

    “Western society is where you live today with all its beauty and ugliness.”

    But don’t you see where this ugly and beautyful society is heading. The right wing which you are so worried about (like you, I could ask “why all the hatred Enrique?” but I don’t believe in meaningless slogans) is causing nowhere near as much trouble around Europe as the left-wing petrol-bomb throwing youth “activists”.

    • Enrique

      –But don’t you see where this ugly and beautyful society is heading. The right wing which you are so worried about (like you, I could ask “why all the hatred Enrique?” but I don’t believe in meaningless slogans) is causing nowhere near as much trouble around Europe as the left-wing petrol-bomb throwing youth “activists”.

      Does this really worry you? So what you are suggesting is that even before this happens, we have to enact special laws to deal with the problem. If a person throws a petrol bomb he is responsible for his actions and there are laws to deal with such a person. Why would they want to throw petrol bombs in Finland anyway?

  9. Tony Garcia

    “Does this really worry you?”

    Very much. Doesn’t you? It should…

    “Why would they want to throw petrol bombs in Finland anyway?”

    I don’t know, but why are they doing it in Sweden? Or the Muslims in Sweden are different to the ones in Finland?

  10. Tony Garcia

    You ask…

    ““We are only opposed to immigration that is harmful to Finland and Finns.” What does that mean?”

    Could we start with this?

    Today UK is the most violent country in the EU, even more than SA and USA, believe it or not, but that is what the European Commission says. So what’s causing this?

    I already posted here the news about the race war between Afghans and Somalis in north east of London. 2 days a gang of Africans beat the crap out of an elder Muslim. He died yesterday. What’s going to happen now? Will the Muslin community just grieve the man and carry on with their lives? Or else?

    The British government, as the Swedish, French, Italian, Greek and others, is losing control of Muslims and African ghettos. Michael Nazir-Ali, and Asian, has already warned about the non-going areas, or Muslims strongholds, in Brittan. Some areas in France police won’t go without reinforcement. And rescue forces in Malmo need to ask permission to Muslims leaders to enter in some areas to attend injured people.

    That’s the reality today in multicultural countries. In places where cultural sensitivity has been exercised, the rule of law has been replaced by violence.

    This is bad immigration. This is what Mäki-Ketelä is talking about, and I agree with him 100%.

    And yes it needs to be brought over and over again until this government decide to do their job.

  11. Referee

    It probably undoes all wrongs and makes the victims of religiously/ ethnically/ politically motivated violence (e.g. “immigrant youths” who have attacked jews, women, homosexuals, righ-wing politicians etcetc in France, Sweden, UK, Holland etcetc.) feel safe and good again, to tell them there are laws to deal with the perpetrators. You know there were laws to deal with murderers in Rwanda in 1994, so I guess they didn’t have any problems either.

    So what happens de jure, obviously happens de facto? So let’s just keep doing the same things we did so far, let’s not analyse the crime statistics (it’s the nasty statistics that are racist!) and draw any conslusions from them! Instead let everybody cross the borders! No more problems can arise because we have de jure, laws to deal with the problems!

    • Enrique

      –You know there were laws to deal with murderers in Rwanda in 1994, so I guess they didn’t have any problems either.

      Rwanda is an extreme example as is Burundi.

      Referee, we can discuss anything you please. However, are you suggesting that we should take the law in our hands to deal with crime?

    • Enrique

      –And once we open the borders we don’t have illegal anymore, so another problem “solved”.

      Tony, I guess you are adding a bit of humor in your comment. The first question: Are our borders open? Yes, to the EU. Are they to the non-EU world? No. So what are you suggesting? That we close our borders to EU citizens?

  12. Tony Garcia

    “Tony, I guess you are adding a bit of humor in your comment”

    Yes I’m trying to follow the referee’s sarcasm, although I admit I don’t do this very well…

    However talking seriously, my suggestion could and have always been, close the borders to bad immigration.

    “Are they to the non-EU world? No.”

    Well they don’t look so closed to Africans and Muslins. Do they?

    PS. You are right about Finland having only 2.5% immigration, however 10% of the population of Helsinki area not Finnish or Swedish speakers. From some in Finland immigration may not be a big deal yet, but for others…

  13. Referee

    Where the hell in between my lines did you find a suggestion to “take the law in our hands”???

    By political decisions and laws it’s more or less possible to keep unwanted people outside the borders -such who stand out in crime statistics wherever in the world they go – before such people are large enough in numbers to create their ghettoes and no-go areas. That’s when you’ve reached the point where the law has lost its meaning and it’s useless to say “don’t worry about crime because it’s illegal”.

    Rwanda was an extreme example all right – about multicultural coexistence.

    About the borders: again what is de facto, what is de jure? The fact is that this year so far we have 5000 new aslym seekers. Add to that 4 family members for each of these social immigrants. If the door is shut maybe they keep coming in through the windows or down the chimney?

    • Enrique

      –Where the hell in between my lines did you find a suggestion to “take the law in our hands”???

      Did I make such an affirmation? I said that since you appear to express that our laws are not effective enough, there may be a little bit more that has to be done. When you speak of a record (?) 5,000 asylum seekers, where have you got this information? As far as I know, there was speculation in the beginning of the year that we would hit a record of 6,000 asylum seekers this year. By mid-year, however, such fears have subsided.

      –Rwanda was an extreme example all right – about multicultural coexistence.

      No, I think it has more to do with colonialism and total ignorance about where ethnic lines should be drawn. European colonists did so without any concern for ethnic groups in Africa.

  14. Referee

    “Did I make such an affirmation?”

    Ok, technically you did not, so I apologise if I misinterpreted your question about taking law into own hands as rhetorical.

    5000 aslym seekers was not the exact figure, in fact by now it’s nearly 4000 which doesn’t really change the whole picture and where we are headed with this problem.

    Your explanation about Rwanda is just what I said but in different words. “Where ethnic lines should be drawn”; since when did you start to support apartheid??
    Quite ironic, considering that different ethnicities within the same borders were supposed to be positive and culturally enriching 🙂 But now it’s keeping different ethnic groups apart from each other with borders to avoid conflicts such as what took place in Rwanda…

    • Enrique

      –Your explanation about Rwanda is just what I said but in different words. “Where ethnic lines should be drawn”; since when did you start to support apartheid??

      Come on Referee, you know that I would be the last person to support apartheid. People from different tribes are not just thrown into an imaginary country drawn by Europeans and forced to live happily ever after. You know that it does not work that way. The same is the problem in northern Mali and Niger, where you have Tuaregs fighting a civil war against the blacks in the south. But look at it this way. I go to a continent and draw an imaginary country and force people to live in it without taking into consideration ethnic/historic problems That was my point. If you ask me, the whole idea of the nation state is a bit old fashioned in a globalized world. For some it is important while for others it is less important.

  15. Tiwaz

    -“Come on Referee, you know that I would be the last person to support apartheid. People from different tribes are not just thrown into an imaginary country drawn by Europeans and forced to live happily ever after. You know that it does not work that way. The same is the problem in northern Mali and Niger, where you have Tuaregs fighting a civil war against the blacks in the south. But look at it this way. I go to a continent and draw an imaginary country and force people to live in it without taking into consideration ethnic/historic problems That was my point. If you ask me, the whole idea of the nation state is a bit old fashioned in a globalized world. For some it is important while for others it is less important.”

    Why you then support idea that we should have in Finland, which is not imaginary state, such ethnic division?

    If having people from different cultures thrown together is source of problems in Africa, why they are not in Europe?

    As for your notion that nation state is old fashioned. Very foolish of you. Those to whom having place they can rightfully call “home” is less important are few and far between. They are not some new “grand breed” of humans, but sad social failures who are doomed to being rootless and lost.

    Maybe some day, in very very faraway future your dream of one humanity for this planet might be possibility, but today you have to accept that people still need their own turf. You can’t just declare nation state “old fashioned” and demand huge jump in social evolution. It has to take place slowly if it happens at all, and right now problem is that people are trying to force the change.

    That in turn leads to violent backlash when people are bent too far for their liking.

    EU is most likely next step in European social evolution, but even that is starting to outpace tolerance of people in it. That is when you have to hit the brakes and slow down, because if you do not you will just cause whole thing to fall apart and take huge step backwards.

  16. Tony Garcia

    Is this interesting or what?

    http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Roma+liaisons+interfere+in+moves+by+other+Roma/1135249190079

    “…Johanna Suurpää says that the liaisons have been found to interfere with housing applications of other Roma in a way that could amount to discrimination.”

    “Their plans foundered when the local Roma liaison said that it would not be appropriate for the family to move to the community. Palmroth and Grönfors were shocked. They said that every Roma knows when family feuds are an issue, but they say that there were no such problems here.”

    Yep Palmroth, I keep reading the same in this forum, but as we see the reality out there is a bit different, isn’t?

    Anyway once we have already established here that fairness doesn’t mean to be fair and equality doesn’t mean to be equal I think this is fine then…

  17. Referee

    “Come on referee, you know that I would be the last person to support apartheid”

    No, it’s very clear what you said about why different ethnic groups should be kept separated from each other with borders. It just cannot be said more blatantly than how you said it.

    If nation state is old fashioned, then why different ethnic groups in Africa cannot live side by side in peace and harmony within the same borders? With your logic it should not make a difference where the border line was drawn, since nation state is old-fashioned, and individuals from different nationalities will all sit together by the camp fire and sing kumbayah.

    “People from different countries are not just thrown into an imaginary country drawn by Europeans and forced to live happily ever after. You know it does not work that way.”

    I agree! You just cannot put culturally distant people within the same borders and expect a happy end. Whether the country is “imaginary” (aren’t all borders and countries man-made, i.e. “imaginary”??) or not makes no difference, what matters in terms of safety and stability is the people who live there, and their cohesion and shared values. This we see everywhere in the world, and now this failed experiment is being repeated also in Finland with the kind help of third world aslym seekers (I don’t blame them, I blame our politicians who allow it to happen, and even encourage it). We just don’t learn from others’ mistakes…

    • Enrique

      –No, it’s very clear what you said about why different ethnic groups should be kept separated from each other with borders. It just cannot be said more blatantly than how you said it.

      I think I made it very clear that these ethnic divisions in nation-states in Africa were a result of colonialism. It has nothing to do with apartheid but a total disregard and understanding of the groups that live there. Contrary to our technological advanced societies, which are supposed to have a high level of education and great access of information, we are learning to live in multicultural societies. But what you had in some African countrties is outright tragic. It is as if someone from Mars would have come to the Earth and drawn a new map of Europe without taking into account culture, history and other factors.

      –I agree! You just cannot put culturally distant people within the same borders

      You cannot impose that. What we have then is a long process of living together and society building.

  18. Tiwaz

    -“I think I made it very clear that these ethnic divisions in nation-states in Africa were a result of colonialism. It has nothing to do with apartheid but a total disregard and understanding of the groups that live there. Contrary to our technological advanced societies, which are supposed to have a high level of education and great access of information, we are learning to live in multicultural societies. But what you had in some African countrties is outright tragic. It is as if someone from Mars would have come to the Earth and drawn a new map of Europe without taking into account culture, history and other factors.”

    Why cultural differences in Africa are bad but in Europe they “enrich” us?

    Why addition of these groups has caused increase in crime?

    Problem is that you refuse to accept that different cultures are not going to work together unless one side yields it’s cultural traditions which conflict with the other.

    It does not matter how educated we are and how much access we have to information.

    I still consider huge amount of traditions in Islamic cultures to be barbaric, medieval and completely unacceptable in Finland.

    Give me redneck from Southern USA with all their oddities and I am again insulted. Their ways are not acceptable here.

    And so forth.

    And this is with high level of education and excellent access to information.

    Multiculturalism not working has nothing to do with lack of education, it has everything to do with multiculturalism just not working.

    Culture defines how we act and react. If two cultures act and react in ways which are offensive to each other, there can be no reconciliation until one of the cultures has been changed to non-offensive.

    And Enrique, that means you and other immigrants. We Finns deserve to have our culture remain ours in our native land. Even if we do not get to choose to be born here.

  19. Referee

    How are we “learning to live in multicultural societies”?? And how does education and access to information and technology promote that? Especially since the accessible information that shows the reality of multicultural coexistence is far from flattering; how is that information supposed to create harmony between groups with conflicting values?

    And if we being educated and informed should make us learn to live in multicultural societies, how do you plan to deal with illiterate aslym seekers (80-90% illiteracy rate among certain groups)? The we-must-have-diversity-gestapo may have brainwashed some naive Finns whose hearts are bigger than their brains, but you won’t be able to “educate” (=indoctrinate) aslym seekers from patriarchal collectivistic cultures the same way.

    Yugoslavia had a higher level of technology and education than Rwanda, yet we saw the same tragic consequences in both countries.

    I would find the irony of you advocating ethnic division for Africans amusing, but the Tutsi genocide and other such atrocities are far too tragic to associate humor with.

  20. intternetnetsi

    “I am a bit offended by the first affirmation.”

    So you dont understanad direct democracy. How you can be offended when you have more rights to change things. Or are you afraid that people vote “wrong”?

    “We are only opposed to immigration that is harmful to Finland and Finns.”

    Arent that clear? Harmful is harmful.

    • Enrique

      –“We are only opposed to immigration that is harmful to Finland and Finns.”

      What is “harmful” immigration? And who decides that? Taking into account your past comments, I guess you are speaking of Muslims.

  21. intternetnetsi

    “What is “harmful” immigration? And who decides that? Taking into account your past comments, I guess you are speaking of Muslims.”

    Anyone who refuses to integrate and causes problems.
    Isnt it clear that its harmful?
    And yes they are mostly these new muslims, how come tatars havent had problems they have?

    • Enrique

      –Anyone who refuses to integrate and causes problems (Hannu). Harmful immigration is immigration which causes more harm than benefit (Referee). Absolutely right. And who can these people be? Well look around (Tony)…

      Even if countries want to bring a certain group as immigrants and keep out others, there is no system on Earth that can do this. Furthermore, I believe that the EU (and Finland) have a certain preference for the type of immigrants they want. A study by Pirkko Pitkänen and Satu Kuoki in 1991 showed that the authorities in Finland stated that the best thing for the country would be immigration from western Europe, especially from the Nordic region and Ingrians.

      Think for a second if Finland put a sign on its door that stated “no people from x group allowed?” Think about if our country started to kick out people on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, and/or cultural background? What you are speaking here is having a two- or poly-tier system where laws are applied in different ways and intensity depending on the group. In the first place, it would undermine our own values, be unsuccessful and exclude groups from our society and be harmful. It would not further integration but impede it.

      So, to conlcude, there is no such thing as harmful immigration (group) but harmful immigrants (criminals/people who break the law) that our society should screen. You cannot do it on the basis of ideology or religion. In our society, these latter two matters are inalienable rights.

  22. Referee

    Harmful immigration is immigration which causes more harm than benefit.

    Consider immigrant group x whose unemployment rate is, say 50%, and crime rate 3 times higher than national average. Based on such facts, would immigration of group x be harmful, neutral, or beneficial immigration for the host country? And what would balance the negative facts so that group x could still be considered non-harmful, or beneficial?

    If you ask me, ethnic vibes and the full range of colours in the streets doesn’t quite compensate for me. Maybe prospects of good integration into society of successive generations (but for that I would require solid evidence e.g. from other countries). Or maybe a LARGE number of real professionals and beneficial individuals whose efforts would compensate for those who refuse to integrate and play by the rules.

  23. Tony Garcia

    “Harmful immigration is immigration which causes more harm than benefit.”

    Absolutely right. And who can these people be? Well look around…

    Did the Finnish press reported the last night riots and arsons in Sweden? AGAIN…

    Just this week the Swedish government is launching another desperate measure to try to deal with the “challenges” of multiculturalism. I posted about the compulsory “western” classes to asylum seekers last week.

    No matter how much effort you put on, or how much money you give, Africans and Muslins will always be a burden to whoever accept them.

    http://www.thelocal.se/22042/20090912/

    “Friday night was a troublesome one for many police forces across Sweden with several reports of arson and unrest. Police fear an escalation in the violence.

    A police car was subjected to a shower of stones in Gottsunda as the unit was sent to investigate reports of vandalism by youth gangs.

    At around 11pm further reports of burning cars were called in by concerned residents in Gottsunda and Valsätra, who have had to sustain continued unrest since the troubles broke out two weeks ago.”

  24. Referee

    Finnish authorities don’t have to be oligated to issue visas and RP’s to any unwanted individuals, why should a preferential system be impossible???

    There is no need for any sign anywhere saying “no individuals from group x are allowed”, and there is no need to kick any individual out of the country based on ethnicity, religion or cultural background, and it will still be possible to keep unwanted elements out of the country to a large degree.

    “You cannot do it on the basis of ideology or religion”

    Haha, first thing that reminds me of is the entry form for the USA, they ask if you belong to a nazi organization or something like that. Just an example how you can “screen” immigration on the basis of ideology.

  25. intternetnetsi

    So now having different rights and laws undermine our society when before it was cultural richness?

    And we can do and we do judgements based on religion what include also ideologies.

    Our whole system is based on ideology.

    People from area where in their ideology consist that woman can be beated and others are subpeople are judged because of their ideology because its against our ideology.

    And no those people dont just magicly transform to accept western ideology when they cross a border.

    Should we import people from where theil ideology dont fit our ideology?

    • Enrique

      –So now having different rights and laws undermine our society when before it was cultural richness?

      I do not understand your point nor the question. By the way, can you see a person through his religion, culture and ethnicity and judge him for his character as Martin Luther King said? It is the easiest thing in the world to judge people by the latter things I mentioned. It does not take a lot of brains. Moreover, would you feel a rush of anxiety since the world you think you know does not look that way anymore?

  26. Tiwaz

    -“Think for a second if Finland put a sign on its door that stated “no people from x group allowed?” Think about if our country started to kick out people on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, and/or cultural background? What you are speaking here is having a two- or poly-tier system where laws are applied in different ways and intensity depending on the group. In the first place, it would undermine our own values, be unsuccessful and exclude groups from our society and be harmful. It would not further integration but impede it.”

    Why not?

    As said, Finland can flat out refuse any RP or visa to be given to people representing those groups. Refuse to accept refugees from those areas and finally, swiftly deport to country of origin ANY lawbreakers in that community.
    Regardless of state of affairs in that country. Any refugee accepted inside borders of this nation owes us natives to respect our culture and laws. If they out of their own free will break our laws, they deserve no pity.

    As for integration. WAKE UP! Current pampering and appeasement is not causing integration! Multiculturalism has failed, waiting for immigrants from those arse backwards societies to adjust to liberal and modern nation has failed.

    Asking nice has failed, time to change the approach.

    -“So, to conlcude, there is no such thing as harmful immigration (group) but harmful immigrants (criminals/people who break the law) that our society should screen. You cannot do it on the basis of ideology or religion. In our society, these latter two matters are inalienable rights.”

    No, they are not inalienable rights. There is no inalienable right of immigrating to Finland. Get your facts straight.

    And if certain group has disproportionate number of “harmful individuals” it is sign that whole group is very much fucked up. And thus it is quite right to deny whole group access. Because we cannot screen troublemakers from the ranks of immigrants. Each one would lie through their teeth to get into Finland.

    • Enrique

      –As for integration. WAKE UP! Current pampering and appeasement is not causing integration! Multiculturalism has failed, waiting for immigrants from those arse backwards societies to adjust to liberal and modern nation has failed.

      Multiculturalism has been promoted in countries with liberal democratic backgrounds.

      What kind of “appeasement” are you speaking of. Could you be more specific?

  27. Tony Garcia

    “What you are speaking here is having a two- or poly-tier system where laws are applied in different ways and intensity depending on the group”

    Really? Well quite interesting.

    I remember you advocating this very same system sometime ago. When I asked your opinion about Malik’s comment on “fairness doesn’t mean treating people equally” you answered…

    “In multiculturalism, groups are taken on a case by case basis as opposed to integration, remember? It means that when we set policy, it sometimes works for one group as opposed to others.”

    So we can have a poly-tier system if that benefit minorities but not if it creates a save environment for the majority?

    Interesting…

    • Enrique

      –I remember you advocating this very same system sometime ago. When I asked your opinion about Malik’s comment on “fairness doesn’t mean treating people equally” you answered… “In multiculturalism, groups are taken on a case by case basis as opposed to integration, remember? It means that when we set policy, it sometimes works for one group as opposed to others.”

      This is what Tariq Modood says about multiculturalism: “To summarize, multiculturalism or the accommodation of minorities is different from integration becasue it recognizes groups, not just individuals, at the level of identities, associations, belonging, including diasporic connections; behaviour, culture, religious practice, etc.; and political mobilitzation. It appreaciates that groups vary in all kinds of ways and so will become part of the social landscape in different ways.” (Modood: Multiculturalism. Polity Press. Campridge 2007. p. 50). It continues on the next page: “If equaly dignity focuses on what people have in common and so is gender-blind, colour-blind and so on, equal respect is based on an understanding that difference is also an important in conceptualizing and institutionalizing equal relations between individuals.”

      So, I think, Malik’s assertion that “fairness doesn’t mean treating people equally” could be seen as the above. It does not mean that since people have different customs, we should hide them into some corner and allow them to carry out their customs.

      So

  28. Tony Garcia

    “first thing that reminds me of is the entry form for the USA”

    Referee your example is spot on, however you don’t need to go that far mate, just check the multicultural haven of Europe, UK…

    Last year the Home Office has banned 2 people from entering UK, Michael Savage and Geert Wilders, based only on their ideology (ideology can mean tell the truth about Islam in the multiculturalism dictionary). Neither of them had ever committed any crime or advocated violence.

    Wilders is a good example of the situation the British government is today after allowing so many Muslims in. 2 weeks before the day he should arrive in the UK Lord Ahmed had threatened to “bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords”, in a amazing demonstration of disrespect for democracy. The government, of course, banned Wilders and kissed the Muslim arses.

    However who is today walking free on the streets of Britain and enjoying all the generosity the British taxpayers can give? Just a few names… Mohammed al Ghabra, Anjem Choudary, Abu Izzadine, Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, Abu Usamah at-Thahabi, Dr. Ijaz Mian, Abdullah el-Faisal. You can give these guys a little google and see what they believe and preach.

    The point is, there is only one way for multiculturalism to survive, and it’s through double standards. In a fair debate anyone can debunk the myth of “multiculturalism being good for the host country”. The reality outside shows us a very different picture…

  29. intternetnetsi

    “I do not understand your point nor the question. By the way, can you see a person through his religion, culture and ethnicity and judge him for his character as Martin Luther King said?”

    What you think about KKK?

  30. Tiwaz

    -“Multiculturalism has been promoted in countries with liberal democratic backgrounds.”

    And it has failed. Those liberal democratic countries are suffering from internal problems directly caused by multiculturalist delusion that cultures are just peachy together no matter how different they are.

    It is not true. Differences between cultures cause them to conflict. If foreign group is permitted to grow large enough and form their own ethnic living area, it further enforces the segregation in society by creating de facto nation within nation. Which will seek to grow and “annex” more territory around it. Leading to conflict with surrounding areas.


    What kind of “appeasement” are you speaking of. Could you be more specific?””

    Basically everything which elevates immigrants above natives. Everything which grants immigrants special rights due to their “cultural needs”.

    Let us take example. Britain for one now recognizes Sharia courts. This is appeasement, instead they should simply state that such court is not part of British legal system and thus is illegal. And everyone involved with one will be prosecuted.

    Instead, they appease Muslim population resulting in further segregation from rest of society.

    Or Sikh being permitted to carry bladed weapon in public.

    Few immigrants clinging to foreign and incompatible ways are minor annoyance. When they number thousands, they become threat to local stability and security.

    • Enrique

      –And it has failed. Those liberal democratic countries are suffering from internal problems directly caused by multiculturalist delusion that cultures are just peachy together no matter how different they are.

      I would not bet on that. All types of reforms take time: they suffer setbacks and then move ahead. But certainly we have to look at the mistakes and the positive things it has brought. I mentioned some time ago that Finland is a multicultural country in the same light as Canada. Even though we guarantee the same rights to minorities as in countries such as Great Britain and Canada, there is no mention in our laws (Non-Discrimination Act) and Constitution that we are officially a multicultural society. Some scholars like Peter Kivisto see Finland as a country with “multicultural sensibility.”

  31. Tiwaz

    -“I would not bet on that. All types of reforms take time: they suffer setbacks and then move ahead. But certainly we have to look at the mistakes and the positive things it has brought. I mentioned some time ago that Finland is a multicultural country in the same light as Canada. Even though we guarantee the same rights to minorities as in countries such as Great Britain and Canada, there is no mention in our laws (Non-Discrimination Act) and Constitution that we are officially a multicultural society. Some scholars like Peter Kivisto see Finland as a country with “multicultural sensibility.””

    We have history to prove multiculturalism to be failure. Or do you see Civil war in Yugoslavia to be “minor setback”? Yugoslavia was as multicultural as it gets. Where did it take them? To war.

    Britain tries to be multicultural, and result is that their natives flee the country they no longer recognize. Those who stay become increasingly anti-immigrant in their position.

    Canada is waking up to rough reality of multiculturalism as instead of receiving immigrants from Europe (with very similar cultural tradition) they started to get people from Middle East and Africa. And resulting crime issues.

    Tell me.

    WHAT POSITIVE THINGS MULTICULTURALISM BRINGS?

    And further, how do you justify that they more than make up the issues of crime and social instability they cause?

    No crime has been reduced by multiculturalism, but more has been introduced.
    No social issues have been reduced by multiculturalism (poverty, sickness etc) but more have been introduced through segregation and loss of social cohesion.

    So why I would want multiculturalism to my country if it does not improve my society?
    As for Finland being multicultural… We are not. Well over 90% of population are natives. But even so, we are already experiencing the ill effects of cultural conflict, despite percentage of foreigners being so small.

    Here is about British attitudes on immigration:
    http://www.uta.fi/~helmiina.munukka/immigration.html

    “In a British poll concerning immigration in 2007, 72% said that the British government is doing a ‘poor’ job at handling immigration. The poll revealed also that 62% think Britain ‘will lose its unique identity if immigration continues at current rates’. Immigration was considered as a threat by 52%, but 46% acknowledged the economic benefit that the influx of workers has on the UK economy (Mail Online). A result like this implies that British people are not satisfied with the way the British government is handling the situation with immigrants. On the other hand, the poll states that more than half of the people consider immigration as a threat. This might sound concerning, but the other half of the British people, who do not see immigration as negatively as this, should not be forgotten. The average British immigration attitude is one that would like to toughen the immigration and citizenship laws, but which is simultaneously against all discrimination within the society (Heath and Tilly 131). ”

    As time goes and immigrant issues are avoided by politicians, this statistic will keep swinging against immigrants.

    Time to wake up and smell the real roses multiculturalists! People do not want to live in multicultural hellhole, they want to live in place they can call home. And home means it must have traditions, values and principles they can identify with. Multiculturalism goes against this community cohesion, and thus will fail.

    Multiculturalism lacks the glue which keeps societies together. That is why societies attempting it will sooner or later either turn against multiculturalism and begin enforcing one culture above all others or, if there is no longer sufficient majority, civil war.

    Neither option will be good as there will be excesses in enforcement of single culture, but it is still far preferable to alternative.

    Best option would be if people quietly buried the whole notion of multiculturalism and started to remind immigrants that they came to host nation voluntarily and should therefore do everything in their power to fit in.

    Thus, we would avoid loss of community cohesion and following negative aspects of reinstating it.

    • Enrique

      –We have history to prove multiculturalism to be failure. Or do you see Civil war in Yugoslavia to be “minor setback”? Yugoslavia was as multicultural as it gets. Where did it take them? To war.

      Tiwaz, this is where I disagree totally with you. Due to history and nation-building, Finland wiped off its multicutlural past. The big revelation in this century will be accepting what we were all along.

      Why do you always bring the worst cases when you place your case against multiculturalism?

      –People do not want to live in multicultural hellhole, they want to live in place they can call home.

      I would not call it that. But hey, globalization means that matters have changed for good in this respect like it or not.

    • Enrique

      –WHAT POSITIVE THINGS MULTICULTURALISM BRINGS?

      It has brought us together. It has enriched our diet and lives. Remember Napoli spaghetti? Now would you want to eat that or a mulitcultural-multinational brand such as Barilla? I know it is a lousy example, but you get the point.

  32. Tony Garcia

    Hola Enrique,

    Customs? What customs? What are talking about? This is not about a stupid guy right’s to have a funny beard or a pathetic woman wear rubbish bags. It’s about having in effect different set of laws/rules for different people, with, as you said yourself, undermine our own values, and it’s happening, for F** sake.

    Malik’s comment was after a debate about the different rules for travellers(gypsies) in the UK.

    1.If I want to build a shed in my garden you can challenge that in the council, and with enough reason you can stop it, however if rather than me as your next door neighbour you have a traveller, forget it, you gave no rights to complain about it. If you want to build a house, first you have to buy a site then you have to pay council tax every year, they get the site for free and don’t pay the tax.

    PS. Have you ever seen a travellers site? Have you see what they do with the neighbourhood? You know, if you really want to do a honest research you should take some time and see it by yourself before defend it. There are 2 sites here between Bray and Graystones, It’d be a nice idea to talk to the people who live around those sites and listen to what they have to say.

    2.If you and I have a child each to put in a school and the school has only one place they are to consider many factors before decide with child will get the place. How about if rather than me your child is disputing the place with a traveller’s child? Forget it, you lost the place mate.

    3.You have to pay for health care through your taxes, travellers don’t work so they get it for free. If you need an appointment you may have to wait up to a week to get a 15 mins appointment. Travellers must be seen in the same day and get one hour appointment.

    You know probably from Mr. Modood keyboard multiculturalism may look wonderful, however, my friend, in the streets the situation is quite different.

    • Enrique

      –This is not about a stupid guy right’s to have a funny beard or a pathetic woman wear rubbish bags.

      Do you really feel this way, Tony? Then life must be an even greater bitch. Do you think if we lived thirty years ago in Britain, we would be speaking of blacks instead of Muslims?

      When you give the example of the traveler, how many do you think we are talking about?

  33. Tony Garcia

    “I would not bet on that”

    Sorry Enrique but he’s not the one betting here, he’s just showing the today’s reality. You insist that if we close our eyes long enough all the problems will just go away. Really? How long?

    UK started they multicultural experiment just after the second war, what did they get so far? The title of the most violent country in Europe. Also now UK is seen as an great source of terrorists. They born in the UK and go fight home and abroad.

    France, when did they start getting Africans? What they have now? You know, you should do some field research about the subject. How about some places in the outskirt of Paris? The areas called ZUS (zones urbaines sensible) would be a nice place for you to spend a month or two.

    Sweden, Beside the wild weekends with are already common in some areas, now they have to deal with the Black Cobra gang. have you seen news about it? Do you know who they are and what they are doing? Or you think this kind of news serve no purpose but to spread hatred?

    Honestly you should consider ask the government a grant for field research, perhaps stay here in Ireland for a month or two. I can give you some places in Limerick or Longford where you could rent a flat and just look around.

    • Enrique

      –You insist that if we close our eyes long enough all the problems will just go away.

      Did I ever insinuate that we should close our eyes and stick our heads in the sand? I don´t think so. The fact is, Tony, that globalization and the fact that people move around more than before means that what you see is here to stay. You can do two things: (1) shove it in a corner and forget it; or (2) learn to live in a society that benefits from diversity.

  34. Tony Garcia

    And talking about dual system, I just can’t avoid talking about our bearded friends, can I?

    Sharia courts today are reality in the UK, where women have far less rights than men. Does this undermine our values?

    Muslim can ask to be seen by another Muslim police officer. If I ask a Christian policy officer I’ll be charged for racial discrimination. Does this undermine our values?

    Mosques are run without any supervision. Women have times to go and do their prayers and some events are for men only. In some Mosques some people from some ethnic background are not allowed in. Does this undermine our values?

  35. Tiwaz

    -“Tiwaz, this is where I disagree totally with you. Due to history and nation-building, Finland wiped off its multicutlural past. The big revelation in this century will be accepting what we were all along.”

    WHEN has Finland been “multicultural”? Hmm? How about showing me EVIDENCE. It hasn’t. We have had cultural minorities living in Finland, but they have NEVER been multicultural in your sense. Minorities have been told to either adjust or fuck off.

    There has never been any “ok, your way is just as good as mine”-multiculturalism. Only assimilation to Finnish society on Finnish terms.

    Or perhaps you would like to present to us proof on how Tatars, Jews, Sami or Swedish speakers have kept cultural traditions which are in conflict with Finnish ones? They haven’t, they have adjusted their culture to Finnish one. Assimiliated.

    And during reigns of Swedish and Russian royalty… Again, no multiculturalism. Those who were on top did their thing and rest of people did their thing. There was no contact between these groups on any notable level. Or perhaps this is your multiculturalism, perfect example of segregation and divided society your multiculturalism brings.


    Why do you always bring the worst cases when you place your case against multiculturalism? ”

    Because you desperately try to deny failure of multiculturalism. You pretend it will work just fine no matter what. But in reality, attempts to create multicultural societies have led to some of the most horrible violent massacres in recent history.

    “It has brought us together. It has enriched our diet and lives. Remember Napoli spaghetti? Now would you want to eat that or a mulitcultural-multinational brand such as Barilla? I know it is a lousy example, but you get the point.”

    Napoli spaghetti is not culture. I can eat italian food without embracing Italian culture. You failed.

    I WANT TO SEE HOW MULTICULTURALISM IMPROVES SOCIETY, NOT IRRELEVANT DIETARY EXAMPLES.

    As for your “enrichment”. I would do without all the extra “enriching” crime your multiculturalism brings.

    Show me how multiculturalism has solved MORE problems than it causes. Show me how increased crime and social instability are somehow magically replaced by some TANGIBLE benefits from multiculturalism.

    • Enrique

      –WHEN has Finland been “multicultural”? Hmm? How about showing me EVIDENCE. It hasn’t. We have had cultural minorities living in Finland, but they have NEVER been multicultural in your sense.

      The answer is in history: Swedish (1150-1809) and Russian rule (1809-1917). Then when Finland gained independence it started to build a national identity with the help of fact (language) and fiction (eugenics). As Finland got older as an independent country, it became more remote from the rest of Europe. There was the Continuation War and that problematic relationship with Nazi Germany… But in the Cold War era it was pretty much isolated. Its foreign policy after the war was to reintegrate itself politically and economically (Efta) with the West. So, as you can see, we have had a lot of influence due to the multicultures that have existed here. I believe the foreign population of Finland hits a low ebb in the 1960s.

      So, Tiwaz, we are becoming what we were before: a nation that is European mixed culturally and genetically with the rest of the continent.

    • Enrique

      –I WANT TO SEE HOW MULTICULTURALISM IMPROVES SOCIETY, NOT IRRELEVANT DIETARY EXAMPLES.

      Check globalization. That is a good place to start with. It has its good and bad points. How did Finland benefit when it was part of Sweden? Part of Russia? These rulers were pretty harsh with Finns since they took away (or attempted to at least during Russification) to bully Finnish culture. Don’t forget that it was Czar Aleksander II that gave Carl Henrik Ståhlberg what he wanted -language rights in the early 1860s.

  36. Tiwaz

    -“The answer is in history: Swedish (1150-1809) and Russian rule (1809-1917). Then when Finland gained independence it started to build a national identity with the help of fact (language) and fiction (eugenics). As Finland got older as an independent country, it became more remote from the rest of Europe. There was the Continuation War and that problematic relationship with Nazi Germany… But in the Cold War era it was pretty much isolated. Its foreign policy after the war was to reintegrate itself politically and economically (Efta) with the West. So, as you can see, we have had a lot of influence due to the multicultures that have existed here. I believe the foreign population of Finland hits a low ebb in the 1960s.”

    I have shot down your rather pathetic attempts already.

    Swedish and Russian rule were not age of multiculturalism. There was none of your beloved “multiculturalism” present.

    When Swedes ruled, they NEVER considered Finnish culture to be equal to Swedish. Finns had to change their names and speak SWEDISH if they wanted to get anywhere.

    But at the same time, Swedes did not give crap what the average peasant did. Peasants still spoke Finnish, still followed Finnish culture. There was no multiculturalism.

    Same with Russia.

    Finland has NEVER been multicultural. This is just your delusion based on bad knowledge on history.

    Actually, you even prove it further with your last phrase. Finland is genetically one of the most unique nations in the world in terms of NOT being mixed with foreigners (foreign overlords did not look favorably upon interbreeding)

    In terms of genetics, Finns are out there with unusually little common with our neighbors.
    http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
    http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/306-the-genetic-map-of-europe/

    -“Check globalization. That is a good place to start with. It has its good and bad points. How did Finland benefit when it was part of Sweden? Part of Russia? These rulers were pretty harsh with Finns since they took away (or attempted to at least during Russification) to bully Finnish culture. Don’t forget that it was Czar Aleksander II that gave Carl Henrik Ståhlberg what he wanted -language rights in the early 1860s.”

    No, I wanted you to give me evidence. Not just some useless buzzwords like “globalization”

    Finland ultimately did not benefit from either Sweden or Russia. When Finland became independent, it was still way behind the curve in industrial might etc. It has been only when foreigners are kept out from Finnish rule that Finland has truly prospered.

    How about you admit here and now to everyone that multiculturalism is not the panacea of goodness and great life you try to claim it but far closer to my view of cancer in human species.

    You clearly have very little knowledge on Finnish history and your ideals on multiculturalism are built on fantasies instead of facts. Please, educate yourself. Open your eyes. Sadly, if you do that, you will lose your love for multiculturalism. But it is better to see ugly reality than deny it.

    • Enrique

      –Swedish and Russian rule were not age of multiculturalism. There was none of your beloved “multiculturalism” present.

      I did not mean modern multicultural policy I MEANT many cultures. There was cultural influence from other cultures.

  37. Tony Garcia

    “I WANT TO SEE HOW MULTICULTURALISM IMPROVES SOCIETY, NOT IRRELEVANT DIETARY EXAMPLES.”

    So do I, but so far I have seen non…

  38. Tony Garcia

    “Do you really feel this way, Tony?”

    Yes I do, and from all I have written this is the only part that you have something to say about? Oh boy…

    “When you give the example of the traveler, how many do you think we are talking about?”

    All of them. Travellers/gypsies is a protected specie in UK/Ireland so all members of their community enjoying being more equal than us.

  39. Tony Garcia

    “You can do two things: (1) shove it in a corner and forget it; or (2) learn to live in a society that benefits from diversity.”

    Again I give real world examples how multiculturalism is brining all sort of violence and social problems and you reply with academic concepts. You tell us than, how do we do that?

    How we benefit from the wave of riots many countries are seeing? Did you see that Sergels trog in Stockholm has been closed last Sunday afternoon due “disturbances”?

    How we benefit from the wave of muslin rape? And please, this has already being admitted by the Norwegian government, so don’t come with the usual BNP “fabrication”.

    How we benefit from the wave of crime is schools. Many schools in the UK are already implementing metal detector at its doors?

    Sorry but real world problems need real world solutions, not academic concepts.

    • Enrique

      –Again I give real world examples how multiculturalism is brining all sort of violence and social problems and you reply with academic concepts. You tell us than, how do we do that?

      Let´s take again a real example and analyse it, ok?

  40. Tony Garcia

    Maybe that could be a way to “benefit from diversity”. We take from our children and give to asylum seekers.

    http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/09/local_spending_cuts_to_hit_schools_hardest_1018626.html

    “Local government spending cuts next year will hit hardest at teaching. A YLE survey finds that one out of three municipal managers says that teaching in schools will be the main target of cuts. Health care will be the second hardest hit.”

    http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/09/more_cash_for_refugee_centres_1008766.html

    “Nearly 33 million euros in extra funding is to be earmarked for refugee reception centres. The Council of State’s Fiscal Committee says the money is needed because of the growing number of asylum seekers and the greater-than-expected reception costs.”

    • Enrique

      –Maybe that could be a way to “benefit from diversity”. We take from our children and give to asylum seekers.

      I think you are exaggerating. Do the math: If we are speaking of a few thousand new asylum seekers a year and hundreds of thousands children in school. I think, amigo Tony, you are seeing Finland through Irish and British eyes. You probably knew that Britain is officially a multicultural country. This means a totally different approach to living in society than, say, with assimilation and integration.

  41. Tiwaz

    -“I did not mean modern multicultural policy I MEANT many cultures. There was cultural influence from other cultures.”

    Very little. As I pointed out, Swedes and Russians only cared about getting their taxes and having everyone speak Swedish/Russian to them.

    Some cultural interaction existed, but there was no multiculturalism present.

    Since you have now retreated from your position that Finland was multicultural how about admitting that Finland is not and never has been multicultural society but society where native culture has been oppressed by foreign conquerors?

    As for many cultures, now it is your duty to show us that having multiple cultures inside borders of one nation is BENEFICIAL. I have pointed to you repeatedly examples on how it is DETRIMENTAL. You have failed to present case which would support creation of your multicultural society.

  42. Tiwaz

    We are waiting for your example Enrique.

    If multiculturalism is so great boon to society, it should not be difficult for you to present us with credible statistics where it shows that problems of society have been reduced as more and more different cultures have been introduced to it under principles of multiculturalism.

    Go on. Show us.

    We have repeatedly presented you with statistics of “multicultural” societies suffering from increased crime and instability (funny how riots take place in Malmö with high amount of immigrants and not in other less “enriched” areas, or how immigrants of certain cultural background manage to way overrepresent themselves in rape statistics in just about every country you dig up statistics for).

    We are yet to see you give proof for your position that multiculturalism benefits society more than it harms it.

    • Enrique

      –We are waiting for your example Enrique.

      If you have grown up in multiethnic societies one of the matters that surprises you is how some groups are treated with equal dignity while others are excluded in the rawest form. A society is only as good as its values and how it permits others to participate in it. If we allow racism to get the better of us as a group, the biggest losers will be ourselves and those values that keep us together as a group. How can we believe in our liberal democratic principles if we, on the other hand, exclude and discriminate. In sum, a societal version of Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde.

      So, to answer your question, you would have to switch your query around and ask what examples do we have of societies where there has been one-sided integration, discrimination and xenophobia. Our history, unfortunately, is littered with such examples. Even though every policy has its good and bad points, I believe that multiculturalism, or the policy of equality in Finland, even though there is no mention of the term “multicultural society,” is important because it attempts to tackle the age-old problem of harmony/synergy in diversity in a novel way. If you look at it, Finland has avoided lots of social problems and strife because its system aims at a sort of social equality for all members of society. Thus you have two roads: the long and painful or short one towards a fair society for all. Your model of integration by perkele has been used too long in too many places and has brought disaster, wars and mass death upon us. World War 2 is a recent example as was the Balkans.

      As mentioned, multiculturalism offers a tailor-made solution to a groups integration into society. It is novel because it creates a public space for them as well. In a true democratic spirit, we also share and allow other ones to share our society with equal respect and equal dignity.

      As one scholar put it: “Multiculturalism of course challenges certain ways of thinking and certain political postions but the challenge is of inclusion and adjustment, not of giving up one comprehensive ppolitics for another.

      Do you want some examples? I would look at Canada, Australia and even Great Britain. These are officially multicultural societies in spirit and in law.

  43. Tiwaz

    -“If you have grown up in multiethnic societies one of the matters that surprises you is how some groups are treated with equal dignity while others are excluded in the rawest form. A society is only as good as its values and how it permits others to participate in it. If we allow racism to get the better of us as a group, the biggest losers will be ourselves and those values that keep us together as a group. How can we believe in our liberal democratic principles if we, on the other hand, exclude and discriminate. In sum, a societal version of Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde.”

    Problem with your argument is that you assume that treatment of groups is prior to their failure to contribute to society, when in reality it tends to be the opposite.

    Groups who show desire to fit in, work hard and generally contribute get better treatment. Those who do not… Well, nobody likes lazy leeches.

    In most cases when people have no contact with representatives of group X, they do not have very good set of expectations either. So first immigrants of each group either make or break the future for that group.

    That is why Vietnamese boat refugees are not issue but Somalian refugees are. Vietnamese started to work hard and figure out ways to find their own niche. Somalians… Not so. Perhaps there was no niche left for them… Which is irrelevant. Relevant was that in the end most people did not really care either way.

    -“So, to answer your question, you would have to switch your query around and ask what examples do we have of societies where there has been one-sided integration, discrimination and xenophobia. Our history, unfortunately, is littered with such examples. Even though every policy has its good and bad points, I believe that multiculturalism, or the policy of equality in Finland, even though there is no mention of the term “multicultural society,” is important because it attempts to tackle the age-old problem of harmony/synergy in diversity in a novel way.”

    If it is not broken, do not fix it.
    There has not been age-old problem of synergy in diversity. Age-old problem has been that groups refuse to fit in, and thus cause division, segregation and conflict. Fancy “novel” ideas do not change that problem any more than having “novel” ideas changes fact that sudden stop from speed of 100kp/h is fatal.

    “If you look at it, Finland has avoided lots of social problems and strife because its system aims at a sort of social equality for all members of society. Thus you have two roads: the long and painful or short one towards a fair society for all. Your model of integration by perkele has been used too long in too many places and has brought disaster, wars and mass death upon us. World War 2 is a recent example as was the Balkans.”

    Social equality requires unified society. In case you have not figured it out, civil wars and misery come when you can divide people along some line. Finland had one civil war because we allowed our society to be divided.

    Multiculturalism is all about dividing society. There is no society, there are societies! That never works. One country MUST have one set of principles which applies to all, and this does not end with laws. Because laws do not apply to everyday life and polite behavior. CULTURE defines everyday life and polite behavior. That is why culturally divided societies are ones what fail in long term. Only as long as multicultural society is comprised of cultures which have minimal differences it can work. But as travel becomes cheaper and easier it stops being so.

    -“As mentioned, multiculturalism offers a tailor-made solution to a groups integration into society. It is novel because it creates a public space for them as well. In a true democratic spirit, we also share and allow other ones to share our society with equal respect and equal dignity.”

    No it does not! MULTICULTURALISM SPITS IN THE EYE OF INTEGRATION!

    Multiculturalism demands natives to give up their culture and space to give it to foreigners so they do not need to adjust to society they move into. That is epic failure. It raises resentment in natives, creates dividing lines in society. It fails.

    -“Do you want some examples? I would look at Canada, Australia and even Great Britain. These are officially multicultural societies in spirit and in law.”

    Britain, nation with huge amount of white flight, where Britons are becoming increasingly disillusioned with multicultural lie their leaders try to feed them.

    Canada. Things went well until immigrants stopped being nearly completely western, and now Canada is experiencing problems when foreign cultures import their conflicts and violence to Canada. Again, one Canadian immigrant who moved to Finland expressed that she was relived to move, because she had worked in social services of some kind and witnessed how Middle Eastern immigrants kept fighting their feuds on streets of Canadian city. To her it was relief to come to Finland where such thing is still unknown thanks to LACK OF MULTICULTURALISM.

    Australia is basically repeat of Canada where it was some time ago. They are digging trenches as their immigrant muslim community has funny ideas about “uncovered meat”.
    Australia also has very strict policies on immigration, they do not just accept anyone. Mainly immigrants entering Australia come either as family reunions or skilled workers. They do not look favorably upon importing people without skills. So you could say that Australia is strongly elitist. If you have no good diploma, you are not getting in.
    Furthermore Australia runs tight ship on unwanted immigrants. Illegals are put to detention.

    Australia is also ethnically and culturally very MONOCULTURAL. 90% of population being European descent.

    Australia is essentially where Britain was some decades ago, preaching multiculturalism but not having yet permitted to rot it represents to invade their society.

    Your examples are actually very good, Britain is one which has “enjoyed” the “enrichment” longest and most eagerly. And is worst off. Then comes Canada, and finally Australia. They are proof that multiculturalism is cancer of modern society. Longer you let it fester, worse the outcome.

    • Enrique

      –Problem with your argument is that you assume that treatment of groups is prior to their failure to contribute to society, when in reality it tends to be the opposite.

      I disagree totally. I believe that regulation and laws are crucial to create that pathway to incorporation in society by minorities and other groups. In the business world it is the same matter: how do you regulate without getting in the way of a company’s profits. Too little regulation, or leaving companies to do what they please, will lead to disaster. So you need good regulation (referees) to watch over society in order to help it function better. If you leave minorities’ to the task of becoming members of society without any laws (one-sided assimilation) you will get nowhere. Some in this group wll not only be excluded from society, but kept out for generations as we have seen in a number of countries.

  44. Tiwaz

    What I want to see are multicultural societies which are not FAILURES. You just show me multicultural societies which are failing.

    Problem for you is that there is no successful multicultural society in practice. If they are multicultural in anything but name, they fail.

    USA is good example. They have boasted of their “multiculturalism”. But to the very latest period of their history, USA has been dominated to point of monoculturalism with WASP-culture. White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. Perhaps White, Europea and Christian would be more applicable.

    Now, when this traditional foundation of American society has had time to erode, so has USA. As long as they held one unified social/cultural principle above others, they managed to prosper. But when multicultural attitude that every culture should be permitted to do their thing took root. So did the downfall of USA.

    Rome is another good example. They were not actually multicultural, they were Roman. They EXPORTED their way of life and society where they went. And what they imported they Romanized. And THEIR empire lasted for centuries. Same with British Empire.

    Alexander the Great tried to build multicultural empire, much like Tito tried to build multicultural nation with Yugoslavia. Problem for both was that when the man who had the skills to keep such abomination together died… So did the creation. Yugoslavia managed to hang on for a while, but died in more spectacular show of human brutality when impossibility of “one nation, many cultures” failed. Alexanders society died much more shortly after his death.

    • Enrique

      –What I want to see are multicultural societies which are not FAILURES. You just show me multicultural societies which are failing.

      I think you have a dualistic view: success or failure. You cannot measure societies in such simple terms. All societies have problems. Some are more successful than others. And, what kind of variables are you using to measure success? Don’t you think that Finland has failed as a society since its population is aging rapidly (one of the oldest in the EU) and has no clear plan on integrating new members to this society. If I were an immigrant, I would go to an easier country where the langauge, taxation an the weather would be nicer.

  45. Tiwaz

    -“I think you have a dualistic view: success or failure. You cannot measure societies in such simple terms. All societies have problems. Some are more successful than others. And, what kind of variables are you using to measure success? Don’t you think that Finland has failed as a society since its population is aging rapidly (one of the oldest in the EU) and has no clear plan on integrating new members to this society. If I were an immigrant, I would go to an easier country where the langauge, taxation an the weather would be nicer.”

    Name problems which are solved through multiculturalism?
    Hmm?

    What crimes are only present in monocultural societies but not multicultural? Oh yes, there aren’t any. But multicultural societies have huge issues with social instability, riots and whatnot. Clear case of failure there.

    Finnish population aging is a red herring. Large group born straight after WW2 is getting old, that is only notable thing. And they are dying at rapid pace. Essentially we are speaking of statistical fluke which will straighten itself out sooner or later.

    It is temporary problem, permitting rot of multiculturalism take root is long term problem.

    As for no clear plan on integrating new members into society… HOW THE FUCK YOU DO INTEGRATING FOR SOMEONE ELSE?

    IMMIGRANT HAS TO DO THE INTEGRATING, THERE IS NOT “INTEGRATION PILL” TO GIVE THEM.

    Thus, failure is on immigrants, not Finland.

    As for immigrants preferring to go elsewhere. By all means. They will not be terribly missed. If they cannot handle living in country where people prefer to speak their native language and social services are quite well handled but cause larger taxes… Well, all I can tell to those immigrants is fuck off.
    Find country which suits you, do not expect us to change our country to suit you.

    Weather we cannot change, and I rather like it here. At least we used to have 4 seasons.

    And Enriqe, you are an immigrant. You were not born here, nor were you even born abroad to Finnish parents. You are immigrant, not Finn.

    • Enrique

      –Name problems which are solved through multiculturalism?

      As I told you, one cannot see society as an engine (culture) that functions when a certain part of the process ignites. One of the biggest problems that multiculturalism attempts to solve is discrimination of minorities in society. It is a sort of pathway into incoporporation and on the use of public spaces. In sum, it is about SHARING in a sprit of equal respect and equal dignity society. You see, Tiwaz, if you exclude people with the help of racism, one day they will form a ivil movement and get matters changed. Another important matter that multiculturalism aims to do is change the negative labels that are placed on people. Think about it… the Roma have lived in Finland for a very long time and are still a target of racism. The existing model isn’t very effective and keeps the status quo. So, what we are talking about is a total new way of thinking. It is teaching some people that equal respect an equal dignity should also apply to minorities.

      A good example of how a negative label can become a positive one are the blacks of the United States. Before the civil rights movement, black was something negative. They weren’t even called that back then but officially “Negroes.” After the civil rights movement the so-called “Negroes” decided that they would be named “blacks” or “Afro Americans.” The ethnic label took a radical about-turn. And, hey, you cannot go around telliing me that because your great, great, great, great grandfather fought in some war, that gives you specal privileges. Under this system, people would never get their rights.

    • Enrique

      –As for no clear plan on integrating new members into society… HOW THE *** YOU DO INTEGRATING FOR SOMEONE ELSE? IMMIGRANT HAS TO DO THE INTEGRATING, THERE IS NOT “INTEGRATION PILL” TO GIVE THEM.

      Certainly an immigrant that moves to a society must make an effort to integrate into society. By integration I mean understanding how society in general works in order to function effetively. This is especially true in the workplace. Your view of one-sided assimilation is the old way of doing things. You like it because it suits you fine. You get the most with the least amount of pain.

  46. Tiwaz

    -“I disagree totally. I believe that regulation and laws are crucial to create that pathway to incorporation in society by minorities and other groups. In the business world it is the same matter: how do you regulate without getting in the way of a company’s profits. Too little regulation, or leaving companies to do what they please, will lead to disaster. So you need good regulation (referees) to watch over society in order to help it function better. If you leave minorities’ to the task of becoming members of society without any laws (one-sided assimilation) you will get nowhere. Some in this group wll not only be excluded from society, but kept out for generations as we have seen in a number of countries.”

    Again you demand that host nation must appease immigrants.

    Why? Immigrants are free NOT TO COME if they cannot handle living here. And they are free TO LEAVE if they cannot handle living here.

    We natives are quite content with our way of life. We do not need, and generally do not want either, to have our way of life changed because immigrants are too lazy or arrogant to learn to adjust.

    It is immigrants who exclude themselves. They refuse to adjust to society around them, demanding society to appease minority at the expense of majority.

    We have 5million+ culturally Finnish people in Finland. And pitifully small amount of immigrants who do not even form remotely unified group.

    Why should those 5 million change their way of life to appease few thousand who cannot handle fact that they no longer live in Whateverland?

    If immigrant cannot live in Finnish culture, fuck off.
    Every immigrant should be given flyer with text “This is Finland. Things are done here Finnish way, not Whateveristan way. Adjust or turn and leave.”

    • Enrique

      –Again you demand that host nation must appease immigrants.

      Why do you see it as appeasement? They are guests and then members of our society, just like you and I.

  47. Tiwaz

    -“Why do you see it as appeasement? They are guests and then members of our society, just like you and I.”

    Because they demand that their ways should replace mine, in country where I, not them or you, am native.

    You should learn something very important about guests…

    GUESTS DO NOT DICTATE TO HOSTS HOW TO LIVE IN HOSTS HOUSE.

    That should clear the issue why I call it demanding appeasement.

    Immigrants whining “I do not want to do things like they are done here. You guys must change your way of life because I am too stupid, lazy and arrogant to figure out how to live in foreign country.” is essentially demand of appeasement.

    And you, by supporting this whine, are also demanding appeasement.

    • Enrique

      –Immigrants whining “I do not want to do things like they are done here. You guys must change your way of life because I am too stupid, lazy and arrogant to figure out how to live in foreign country.” is essentially demand of appeasement.

      This statement shows to me that you understand and know very little about the immigrant community in Finland. It is not appeasement nor whining but exercising a western democratic right: to bring forth my points of view no matter how much you may disagree with them.

      Get it out of your system, Tiwaz: If a person moves to this country, works and pays taxes, he is no longer a guest but a member of society.

  48. intternetnetsi

    News from Sweden, source HS 26.9

    “Maahanmuuttajien kanssa tekemisissä olevat virkamiehet, kuten poliisit ja sosiaalityöntekijät ovat turhautuneet siihen, että tietyissä piireissä suorastaan halveksitaan ruotsalaisen yhteiskunnan tärkeimpiä perustoja ja vain muiden pitää joustaa ja kunnioittaa toisten kulttuuria.”

    How immigrants in Finland are different?

  49. DeTant Blomhat

    “If a person moves to this country, works and pays taxes, he is no longer a guest but a member of society.”

    – So what then is a person who moves into this country, whines and lives on KELA benefits?

    Thats your “multicultural immigrant”.

    • Enrique

      – So what then is a person who moves into this country, whines and lives on KELA benefits?

      Hi DeTant, long time no read. Getting help from KELA is a right if you live in this country – not something you should be ashamed of. If you ask my personal opinion, unemployment is a tragedy. Being jobless in Finland is even a stickier problem if you are an immigrant. Do you have a heart, DeTant?

  50. DeTant Blomhat

    Getting to live in this country is not a “right” though. As for my heart – its where my wallet is. If theres no work why is the immigrant then here? Why do we need immigrants – to bring multinational spaghetti? If we didn’t buy Barrilla and still made Napoli – that immigrant would still have a job. Do you have a logical thought Enrique?

  51. DeTant Blomhat

    As for what comes to Muutos2000/Joutsenpuolue the agendas:

    a) direct democracy
    Basically the “Swiss model” of national/local referendums with a strong local democracy. I think the easiest is to read about it in Wikipedia. Theres pros and cons, but as we can see from the current crisis the system now isn’t really asing the peoples opinion.

    b) immigration
    Again the problem in Finland is that there is no proper immigration policy. The problem with the whole EU is that theres no proper immigration policy. The end result is that eg. asylum process is abused to serve as a way of immigration. The question is resources. We can feed and house a certain amount of people, we can educate a certain amount of people, and we have 200 000 + unemployeds we’d need to invent jobs to. Some people especially refugees need more resources than say your West European worker that actually comes here for a niche job. But how much resources do we have and how can it most efficiently be used, and how do we then tackle the problems arising. Say like Espoo Schools having to cut in education.

    The issue is that doo-gooders like you treat every “problem” (i.e. needing resources) immigrant who might be an illiterate goatherd from wartorn mountains as if he is an unemployed astronaut – and won’t face the fact that apart from there being people blatantly abusing the system the magic wall isn’t going to be spitting money out the wall forever.

    And what cvomes to visas &ce we look at teh Schengen visa agreements and which countries are on the “blacklist” so you don’t try to act as if this was somewhat a “Finnish issue” – the whole EU is in this together.

  52. Tiwaz

    -“This statement shows to me that you understand and know very little about the immigrant community in Finland. It is not appeasement nor whining but exercising a western democratic right: to bring forth my points of view no matter how much you may disagree with them.”

    And I have right to demand that my way of life is preserved, as it is native way of life here and thus has more right to exist here than foreigners ways which are not native.

    Demanding that I, native, must yield my way of life so that some wanker from abroad does not is against the very principles of western democracy.

    Demos, kratos. People rule. We Finns are WAY over 90% of people here. Thus, OUR COUNTRY, OUR RULES.

    -”
    Get it out of your system, Tiwaz: If a person moves to this country, works and pays taxes, he is no longer a guest but a member of society.”

    He is immigrant, not Finn.

    And I thought it was your issue that so few immigrants work. I have always pointed out that it is because they do not have skills to work. They just have skills to demand appeasement.

    If your average whining immigrant used as much time to assimilate into Finnish society and learn useful skills they would no longer be unemployed at such high percentages.

    • Enrique

      –But if you get a job and work you can’t sit back and whine about how “racist” Finland is.

      I could also say the same to you: “But if you get a job and work you can’t sit back and whine about how “non-racist” Finland is.”

    • Enrique

      –But Finland is not “racist”.

      Now where did you ever get such an idea?..

  53. Tiwaz

    -“Now where did you ever get such an idea?..”

    Where did YOU get idea that Finland IS racist?

    From complaints of some immigrants who do not prove their claim in any scientific or objective way?

    Where is your evidence that Finland is enormously racist country? Evidence which proves that it is them being foreigner which disqualifies the immigrants, not their lack of skills.

Leave a Reply