Monikulttuurisuus ei ole poliittinen ideologia

by , under Enrique

Monikulttuurisuus on monimuotoinen ja monimutkainen käsite. Maahanmuutonvastustajille se on yksinkertaisesti siirtolaispolitiikka, joka mahdollistaa etupäässä muslimien, afrikkalaisten sekä ei-eurooppalaisten asumisen Suomessa tai Euroopassa. Tavoite on yksinkertainen: pitää Suomi valkoisena ja muuttumattomana.

Kansanedustaja James Hirvisaari (ps) viimeisessä bloigissaan antaa tyypillisen maahanmuutonvastustajaan selityksen siitä, mikä on monikulttuurisuus. Hirvisaari väittää, että monikulttuurisuus on poliittinen ideologia.

Mutta onko se niin? Tuskin.

James Hirvisaari

Hirvisaaren määritelmä monikulttuurisuudesta ei pelkästä paljasta hänen äärioikeistolaisideologiansa mutta hänen tietämättömyys perustuslaistamme, puhumattakaan yhdenvertaisuuslaista. Käyttääkö hän vielä 1919 perustuslakia lähteenä tai uudempaa ja lainvoimaista versiota, joka tuli voimaan 1999?

Uudessa Suomen perustuslaissa ( 17 §) lukee seuraavasti: ”Saamelaisilla alkuperäiskansana sekä romaneilla ja muilla ryhmillä on oikeus ylläpitää ja kehittää omaa kieltään ja kulttuuriaan .”

Jos Hirvisaarella on vaikeus hahmottaa ,mitä on suomalaisen lain henki , kun puhumme kasvavasta monimuotoisuudesta yhteiskunnastamme, hän on aivan eksyksissä kun hän alkaa selittää omia käsityksiään monikulttuurisuudesta.

Ensinnäkin, monikulttuurisuus ei ole siirtolaisuuspolitiikka eikä poliittinen ideologia, kuten vasta-jihadisitit ja heidän hengenheimolaisensa haluavat antaa meidän ymmärtää.

Monikulttuurisuus sai alkunsa Kanadassa 1970-luvulla sosiaalipolitiikkana. Sen tarkoitus ei ollut pelkästään edistää maahanmuuttajien sopeutumista ja hyväksyntä Kanadassa, vaan myös estää maan hajoamiseen englannin- ja ranskankielisiksi valtioiksi.

Paitsi Kanada, maailmassa on virallisesti kaksi maata, jotka määrittelevät itsensä monikulttuuriseksi. Ne ovat Iso-Britannia ja Australia. Suomi ei ole virallisesti monikulttuurinen maa, kuten nämä yllämainitut. Suomen laissa (perustuslaissa tai yhdenvertaisuuslaissa) ei lue missään, että olemme ”monikulttuurinen yhteiskunta.”

”Monikulttuurisuutemme” lepää pitkälti meidän omissa pohjoismaisessa demokratiassa, ihmisarvon sekä hyvinvoinnin periaatteissa.Maassamme on yksi laki, jota kaikkien on noudatettava, monimuotoisuus sen sisällä on itsestäänselvyys.

Perustuslakiin on kirjattu oikeutemme ja velvollisuutemme. ”Monikulttuurisen yhteiskunnan” tavoite pysyä yhdenvertaisuuslain tavoitteissa vaatii tiettyjä toimenpiteitä, joita ei voi määritellä aina edes positiiviseksi diskriminaatioksi.

Uusi Suomi

 

  1. Iam

    Hi MT, all
    Some people
    Bite bite bite and celebrate with scorpions, snake around themselves.
    Narcisstics
    Their world is small,tiny like an ant.
    Their ways are dusty, dark.
    They make design their own life with a color that they call it white, so life has only one mean for them, white, I, I, I there is only I no more no less
    But hey, how can u be a good designer if u r not able to understanding about all colors?????
    Ur cells of brain need happiness, and so colorful life
    ur minds are old, today is today and not yesterday, move move be aware
    U cant find ways and solutions if u dont have any key
    Dont plant colorful flowers in ur garden and arounf ur summer house when u hate colors and u just fall in love with white,dont eat colorful fruits, go an dbut whie apples, oranges, berries if u can
    Being proud is not good for ur health, care care pleace care about ur blood pressure, ho hooooooooooooo
    Good night dear earth

  2. Yossie

    How I see it is that multiculturalism in finnish context has evolved from the low self-esteem finns have. For example if finland gets ranked 1st for being best country to live in, the common finnish response goes around “lol no way, its not”. On other hand americans go, if ranked low, “lol no way, america is the best country”

    With this mind set, in Finland some people tend to value all foreign above all else. If its finnish then its no good or not interesting. Foreing things on other hand…

    When these people see that Finland doesnt have many immigrants like these other oh-so-fabulous countries, then we need to have them too! Basically what these people want is the exotic pets to show we have these too.

    Other group that use the multicultural agenda is the people that get their living from the integration industry. For these people immigrants and especially muslim refugees are cattle they can process in integration for their paycheck. Harder to integrate, the better. For them, more work the better in guise of multicult.

    One more group that uses multicult are the naive idiots. Basically the open border hippies that would destroy finland as we know it if they got their way.

    All in all, in Finland the multicult tends to center around how to get more muslim immigrants in for reasons above.

    • JusticeDemon

      Yossie

      How I see it is that multiculturalism in finnish context has evolved from the low self-esteem finns have. For example if finland gets ranked 1st for being best country to live in, the common finnish response goes around “lol no way, its not”. On other hand americans go, if ranked low, “lol no way, america is the best country”

      With this mind set, in Finland some people tend to value all foreign above all else. If its finnish then its no good or not interesting. Foreing things on other hand…

      Finland has about 0.1 per cent of the world’s population, so it is completely inevitable that most ideas, innovations, designs and products nowadays are of foreign origin. These ideas, innovations, designs and products bring lifestyle and attitude changes that are also of foreign origin. Under these conditions the assumption that someone, somewhere has come up with a better way of doing things is not “low self-esteem”, but pure realism. The best that we can hope or strive for is to punch above our weight in some sectors of innovation, but even this will not be possible without integrating the best available international solutions into our economy and lifestyles.

      The alternative is to close the economy, but this only works if we also adopt the DDR formula of preventing foreign travel and blocking public access to foreign influence. Finland tried its own diluted version of the closed economic model until the late 1970s, but found it unsustainable, with emigration verging on population haemorrhage at certain times and an absurdly inbred business economy that had local power companies holding shares in a wide variety of small businesses, and major conglomerates struggling to specialise in operations as diverse as Wellington boots, forestry, power generating and electronics. From the website of Nokia footwear:

      In 1967 a long-discussed project was completed when Suomen Kumitehdas Oy and Suomen Kaapelitehdas Oy (Finnish Cable Works Ltd) merged with the forest and power industry company Oy Nokia Ab (Nokia Corporation). The Group’s fields of business were the rubber, cable and forest industries as well as power generation and electronics.

      Only in the closed economy of Finland in the 1960s would such an absurd conglomerate make any sense whatsoever. Nostalgia for this historical period greatly resembles a pining for the camaraderie and community spirit of wartime that conveniently forgets the commodity scarcities and stifling regimentation of such times.

      When these people see that Finland doesnt have many immigrants like these other oh-so-fabulous countries, then we need to have them too! Basically what these people want is the exotic pets to show we have these too.

      Do you get these ideas off the back of a breakfast cereal packet?

      Businesses that specialise to serve a global market also have to compete for world-class expertise. While you were getting drunk and fighting over women in some rural keski-olut pigsty, there were highly motivated young students from the Far East working 14 hours a day in the university library. Who are they going to hire to design and market high technology products so that you can get a job driving a forklift in the warehouse?

      Small economies seeking to secure access to large trading markets must do so on the terms that are offered. Unsurprisingly, these clubs have common rules that are designed to safeguard the interests of their stakeholders. As economic activity always ultimately comes down to human activity, these common rules also extend to the domain of human rights. If our sawmills welshed on an agreement with a British firm in the 18th century and our courts refused to provide a remedy, then HM government would send a gunboat to settle the matter. Nowadays we have article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Along with human rights legislation comes the obligation to behave as a civilised nation in the sphere of international humanitarian migration.

      Other group that use the multicultural agenda is the people that get their living from the integration industry. For these people immigrants and especially muslim refugees are cattle they can process in integration for their paycheck. Harder to integrate, the better. For them, more work the better in guise of multicult.

      You have as much evidence to support this as you have for asserting that the police encourage crime, the fire service engages in arson and motor vehicle distributors arrange secret courses in car theft and joyriding for rural epähiket youths.

      One more group that uses multicult are the naive idiots. Basically the open border hippies that would destroy finland as we know it if they got their way.

      All in all, in Finland the multicult tends to center around how to get more muslim immigrants in for reasons above.

      Finland’s largest immigrant group by a very long way comprises Russian speakers, only a very tiny fraction of whom are Moslems. The Eurabia conspiracy theory is a foreign idea that you have absorbed into your culture and mindset without any reference to facts on the ground in Finland.

      All the more ironic that you should choose to share that theory in the context of discussing naïve idiots.

    • Mark

      Typical cultural cynicism and ignorance of the worst kind, Yossie.

      People who value human rights are not merely in love with exotic pets, but working to create a world of values that you also benefit from. Those values include family, health and freedom. By referring to immigrants merely in the context of exotic pets, you dehumanise immigrants in a disgusting way and also fail to acknowledge that people the world over share these basic values.

      You’re idea that it is either some kind of fashion or otherwise a matter of profit shows you to be utterly morally bankrupt that you cannot exercise enough imagination to realise that you are talking about human beings, like yourself.

      That you try to reduce ideas or opinions about immigration to a matter of superficial fashion shows how intellectually impoverished you are and how you devalue other human beings that actually demonstrate a much more advanced and developed sense of the world’s people’s and cultures.

      Keep insulting your fellow Finns, that’s exactly the sense of superiority, ignorance and arrogance that underpins the fascism of PS.

    • Yossie

      Mark

      When it comes to refugees in Finland and their integration. Its all playing little games of showing how good of a person you are when you play with your little human pets.

      There are millions of peoples poor and suffering. Finland cant solve the problems for them. Number of people born in to those conditions every year are more than Finland can ever hope to capably receive. Resources you have for helping people are limited. They are not infite how matter how much you want to ingore the fact.

      Like you said, everyone are human beings like myself. As such helping one in africa and helping one here is a same thing. However the cost is way higher in here per person. And this matter because, like I said, resources are finite.

      So in my point of view. If you really wanted to help and be a good morally intact person. Helping people in africa, more specially actually helping people to help themselves, would be the most reasonble things. Taking people to live in here is not.

      Add to the fact that Finland is next to a countries that are perfectly safe means that people coming here are relatively rich since they can afford to come here, and that they have skipped perfectly safe countries to get here. If they skip safe countries to get in here, then they are here to increase their standard of living rather than safety.

      As such I rather see helping people in africa that cant go elsewhere to be much more morally intact than helping “refugees” here that are actually more after the increase of standard of living.

      If you really wanted to make world better and all, you would be doing it in africa.

    • Mark

      You have to see it like this, Yossie, because to see it any other way would require you to develop your sense of the world, of humanity and of other people. Something you show yourself incapable of.

    • Mark

      Yossie

      How I see it is that multiculturalism in finnish context has evolved from the low self-esteem finns have.

      This sounds like a typical nationalist/fascist ploy: talk about how Finns should feel better about themselves, and talk about the national character in such a way that it emphasises ‘strength’ and despises ‘weakness’ and then take any issue that relates to Finland’s national standing and use it to exploit the sense that Finland is ‘tough’, and that those ‘lefty commies’ are just soft. This further plays into the promotion of a masculinist/militarist national character.

      Except that we know all too well where that road leads.

  3. JusticeDemon

    Yossie

    You are not offering any concrete solution to the fact on the ground. A person arrives in Finland, perhaps in a transport container, perhaps in transit via Moscow. You cannot send that person to his country of origin because of a civil war, environmental disaster or comparable humanitarian concern. No other country has an obligation in international law to receive that person. That is your fact on the ground.

    Your solution to that concrete problem? “Help them in Africa”

    By this reasoning we would not have hospitals, because the real solution is not to get sick or injured in the first place. Nor would we have transport, because the real solution is to be wherever you need to be with no need to travel. We would not need renovation businesses, because the real solution is to live in houses that never get old, and so on.

    Your grade for these “solutions”? improbatur

    Fortunately Finland’s resettlement and integration policies were designed by people capable of focusing on the concrete problem and designing solutions that address that problem.

    Anyway, Yossie, what is the PS position on international development aid?

    • Yossie

      Justicedemon

      Your reasoning prefers treating first and only a patient that rushed in hospital for slight scratch and ignore dozens cravely injured outside. What you prefer is help those that cut in the line.

      Yes, you send the people back. In time they learn we only help people there near the problem areas rather than taking them here with much higher expense.

      If you are really affraid of your safety, you go to the first country that is available to you. that is not Finland. Your naive if you think people are looking for refugre here. they are looking for higher standard of living. If you prefer giving people higher standard of living on expense of helping those that actually need help then fine.

  4. Jssk

    You have to see it like thus, Yossie, because to see it any other way would require you to develop your sense of the world, of humanity and of other people. Something you show yourself incapable of.

    You are unable to be have empathy without believing we should strive to solve all the worlds problems? Then you are lying to yourself.

    • Mark

      What is this nonsense you and Yossie are peddling about solving the world’s problems?

  5. Jssk

    If you are really affraid of your safety, you go to the first country that is available to you. that is not Finland.

    Not to mention that from the poorest countries, the ones who get here are not the starving children covered in flies that you see in TV. The ones that get here are relatively wealthy.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –Not to mention that from the poorest countries, the ones who get here are not the starving children covered in flies that you see in TV. The ones that get here are relatively wealthy.

      Don’t your so-called “relatively wealthy” have a right to asylum? Your reasoning is odd. It reflects the following: Bring only those that are starving because they cannot come and apply for asylum. No refugees = no problem (sic!).

  6. JusticeDemon

    Yossie

    Your reasoning prefers treating first and only a patient that rushed in hospital for slight scratch and ignore dozens cravely injured outside. What you prefer is help those that cut in the line.

    Not at all. People displaced from conflict or environmental catastrophe all have the same problem. If a country is unsafe for return, then it is equally unsafe for all returnees.

    Yes, you send the people back. In time they learn we only help people there near the problem areas rather than taking them here with much higher expense.

    Now you are showing your true colours, Yossie. You want to send human beings to a place where their lives will be in danger. I’m tired of expressing moral outrage at this, as you are obviously either sick or deliberately trolling, and either way you should not be taken seriously.

    However, you can tell me how you would solve the following two cold, technical problems with your cold, technical and quite frankly disgusting proposal of sending people to die merely because resettling displaced human beings is “too expensive” and you “want them to learn” that we are monsters:

    1. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms absolutely prohibits your proposal.

    2. Anyone who is returned will have to be escorted to their destination by at least two Finnish officials. Your policy will therefore entail an avoidable risk of endangering the lives of those officials, making it impossible to implement under public service regulations on health and safety at work. You could assign such work to military personnel, but this would by definition bring Finland into an armed conflict abroad.

    If you are really affraid of your safety, you go to the first country that is available to you. that is not Finland. Your naive if you think people are looking for refugre here. they are looking for higher standard of living. If you prefer giving people higher standard of living on expense of helping those that actually need help then fine.

    And once again you are failing to respond to the concrete problem on the ground that displaced human beings do in fact make their way to Finland. You obviously have no answer to this that should elicit any response other than complete disgust at your fundamental depravity.

    And there is that “help them in Africa” line again, except that we know that the fascist peruSSuomalaiset are opposed to overseas development aid on principle. That’s the answer that you declined to give above.

    • Yossie

      Justicedemon

      What people like yourself fail to realize is that resources are limited. There is certain amount of money we can use to help others. If it is used to give western standard of living for couple wealthy 3rd world people then, in my opinion, it is not used effectivly.

      About sending people to where they might be in danger. Yes, maybe for the first few. If we would keep consistent with it. People would stop trying to make the expensive and long trip for welfare. They would stay in the safe country they first fled.

      More ideal situation would be that the right of refugee would be limited to neighboring safe countries or at least the closest safe countries. Then the rest of the international community would be coming to help the people in there.

      -It would be more efficient that way since living expenses are usually a lot lower.
      -culture would most likely be more similar so you would not need extensive integration expenses-
      -You would elimante the cost of human trafficking and smuggling that the refugees that come here cost.
      -All would get the equal share of the help rather than those lucky few that make it in the west.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –What people like yourself fail to realize is that resources are limited.

      Standard anti-immigration rhetoric.

      –About sending people to where they might be in danger.

      Anti-immigration naivety and ignorance.

      –More ideal situation would be that the right of refugee would be limited to neighboring safe countries or at least the closest safe countries.

      Ditto.

      All these arguments that you give are standard anti-immigration rhetoric. Imagine, you are telling people whose life in danger what to do when, in fact, you have no idea what they suffer never mind ask their humble opinion.

      Do you understand why nobody takes these arguments seriously?

    • Yossie

      Enrique

      Am I wrong? Are the resources unlimited? You can try your best to hide the fact by coming up with claims of anti-immigration rhetoric but the fact is: The resources we have to help people are limited.

      Then Enrique, have you asked those that are stuck in Africa how fair it is that those wealthy ones that got to Europe get the lion share of the limited resources? Have you asked them how they suffer?

      In my opinion, giving asylums to people in west is the worst form of helping since it costs way more than other forms of help.

  7. JusticeDemon

    Yossie

    What people like yourself fail to realize is that resources are limited.

    So we prioritise. Now tell me what is more important: the newly renovated downtown offices of the fascist peruSSuomalaiset or human lives?

    About sending people to where they might be in danger. Yes, maybe for the first few.

    It doesn’t matter if we just kill “a few” in the vague hope that people will eventually see what monsters we are and stop coming here?

    Ignoring your obvious depravity once again, you didn’t address the two cold, technical problems that I pointed out above, obviously because you can’t. Those points are unanswerable and you know it. The economics tend to get thrown out of kilter when you have to pay large ransoms to get your police officers back from foreign warlords.

    You might also not care to focus on the problem of Rambos with wet pants. For all of this ridiculous rhetoric calling for a policy of killing people, Yossie, the plain fact is that nobody will accept the concrete consequences of such a policy. Even your fascist heroes turn all namby-pamby when the chips are down. We have seen this again and again. The Russian grandmothers case was an object lesson demonstrating the disjunct between rhetoric seeking the votes of the epähiket and the basic humanity that is at least a condition of getting votes from anyone else.

    The rest of your comment simply fails to address the concrete problem on the ground. You can bleat all you like about how displaced persons should not come to Finland, but the FACT of the matter is that they do. You fail to address that fact in any way that is not morally repugnant, and you most certainly provide no constructive solution that would be in any way preferable to our current arrangements for integrating and rehabilitating immigrants.

  8. Mark

    Yossie

    There are millions of peoples poor and suffering. Finland cant solve the problems for them.

    Finland is not trying to solve all the problems of the world. In fact, in terms of overseas development aid as a percentage of GDP, Finland is contributing just 0.43%, while it made a commitment way back in 1970 to reach 0.7% of GDP. Not only that, but the Finnish figures are massaged somewhat because the Government includes funds spent on refugees inside Finland (10% of ODA) and likewise doesn’t make clear how much of the funds are actually spent in Finland paying Finnish experts to advise developing countries.

    Yossie, if you value your Scandanavian character and heritage, it’s worth comparing Finland’s aid contributions (0.54% of gross national income) to other Nordic countries:

    Sweden: 1.12% GNI
    Norway: 1.06% GNI
    Denmark: 0.88% GNI

    Do you even know what the idea of overseas development is or how it is achieved. Have you ever heard of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? If you are for development abroad, then of course you have. The Goals were set for 2015, and the proposed increases in ODA to 0.7% for Finland was in part to help try to meet those goals.

    • eradicating extreme poverty and hunger
    • achieving universal primary education
    • promoting gender equality and empowering women
    • reducing child mortality rates
    • improving maternal health
    • combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
    • ensuring environmental sustainability
    • developing a global partnership for development

    It’s very hard to see how you can suggest we promote overseas development while PS are specifically looking to cut the ODA budget.

    Number of people born in to those conditions every year are more than Finland can ever hope to capably receive.

    What kind of nonsense comment is this? Who on earth expects Finland to solve ALL the problems of the world. Finland has a clear agenda on development aid, though it is struggling to maintain its commitments, partly because idiots like you like to make political capital out of them.

    Like you said, everyone are human beings like myself. As such helping one in africa and helping one here is a same thing.

    Actually, they are not the same thing, for all sorts of reasons. Helping African or any developing countries build public institutions and good governance is a totally different activity to providing refuge to those fleeing persecution or war.

    However the cost is way higher in here per person. And this matter because, like I said, resources are finite.

    JD has already pointed out the ridiculousness of this statement. If a flood victim arrives at your door having lost her home and belongings, do you then suggest that she return ‘home’ and you will help her by promising to contribute a little more to charity this year? You have to deal with both issues at the same time, with development aid and with refugees. You cannot make one an alternative for the other.

    So in my point of view. If you really wanted to help and be a good morally intact person. Helping people in africa, more specially actually helping people to help themselves, would be the most reasonble things. Taking people to live in here is not.

    These are not mutually exclusive options.

    Add to the fact that Finland is next to a countries that are perfectly safe means that people coming here are relatively rich since they can afford to come here, and that they have skipped perfectly safe countries to get here. If they skip safe countries to get in here, then they are here to increase their standard of living rather than safety.

    Relatively rich? Got to laugh at that. You do realise that Kela assistance is only given to those who do not have savings. If you have savings, you are expected to spend them before you become eligible for assistance.

    As such I rather see helping people in africa that cant go elsewhere to be much more morally intact than helping “refugees” here that are actually more after the increase of standard of living.

    You clearly haven’t a flipping clue about refugees and what they go through moving to another country. A refugee is poor in many more ways than merely financial: They often lack appropriate language skills, recognised education, social networks, community status, health and well being resources, and most specifically, opportunity. These disadvantages often persist into third and fourth generations for the simple fact that accumulating wealth, such as acquiring property, depends so much these days on the guarantees of existing holders of capital (home owners).

    What Finnish society is supposed to promise a refugee is first and foremost safety, but thereafter, opportunity. By completely misrepresenting the situation and status of refugees, Yossie, you fail to offer a realistic opportunity. Instead, you offer ignorance and prejudice. Not much help that, for all that you try to claim your efforts to help refugees abroad given you moral authority in these matters. `

    Let me guess, you’ve joined the hordes of Hompanzees that have signed up to KIVA with a few euros so as to massage your consciences and to claim you now have the moral right to slag off immigrants at home? What price did you pay to preserve your prejudice and ignorance, I wonder? €20? €100?

    • Yossie

      Mark

      How much you are able to spare for helping others and how to best use the money are two different things.

      How much Finland will give out is totally dependant on how well Finland is doing. Having a budget of over 50 billion and having 7 billion of it debt. Add to that the backing up of southern european debts, I cant see how much sense it would make to blindly, ignoring all the realities, push forth for some imaginery number that was set up decades ago. We must look for the other part of it. That is how well the money available have been used.

      Ofcourse that is impossible for idiots like you, who could not care a less if the money goes mostly to dictators or not, as long as you can whine for more money and think it is the anwer for the failures of the development aid.

      “You have to deal with both issues at the same time, with development aid and with refugees. You cannot make one an alternative for the other.”

      And when you dont have the moeny to do both? If you use money of something, its away from something else. If you have only money to help that one flood victim in your country, then there wont be any development aid or any other form of aid in africa. Though making his way to Finland this poor flood victim must have gone through dozens of safe countries just because he wants better standard of living.

      “A refugee is poor in many more ways than merely financial: They often lack appropriate language skills, recognised education, social networks, community status, health and well being resources, and most specifically, opportunity. These disadvantages often persist into third and fourth generations for the simple fact that accumulating wealth, such as acquiring property, depends so much these days on the guarantees of existing holders of capital (home owners).”

      And this is why I argued it makes more sense to help them near they own country where these issues would not be nearly as problematic as they are here.

  9. Mark

    Yossie

    How much you are able to spare for helping others and how to best use the money are two different things.

    So, your best articulation is to ‘give it to them in Africa’. That’s it. You had no idea about the MDGs or efforts towards this or any other international development framework. Did you write your international co-operation policy on the back of a fag packet after some beery chats with your fascist mates?

    Do you have any idea about the development work that Finland does abroad, in Namibia, in Ukraine, in Serbia, in Romania, in Azerbaijan etc.? Nope, not a flippin clue, I bet.

    You have no other notion or insight into this topic than that there is this continent called Africa and that there are dictators there stealing your euros. Must be worth a B+ on a first grade test, for sure!

    How much Finland will give out is totally dependant on how well Finland is doing. Having a budget of over 50 billion and having 7 billion of it debt.

    You seem to imply that if we are doing badly, then we should pay less. However, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that this is exactly the situation in regard ODA as a percentage of GNI. If we enter recession, GDP and GNI decline, meaning that Finland would give less in relative terms. Finland’s commitment and goals already take account of economic conditions.

    Having a budget of over 50 billion and having 7 billion of it debt.

    How much of that debt is Finland borrowing at its more advantageous rates of interest in order to lend to other countries who cannot get that good an interest rate? Until a few years ago, almost all of Finland’s foreign debt was of this kind.

    Add to that the backing up of southern european debts, I cant see how much sense it would make to blindly, ignoring all the realities, push forth for some imaginery number that was set up decades ago. We must look for the other part of it.

    Finland is only ‘backing’ those debts, not actually paying anything, as of yet. How much of the debt write-off on Greek debts affected Finnish banks? Zero, to date. And that ‘imaginary’ number is a very modest goal for development aid, as a quick glance across the border to Sweden’s international co-operation work clearly shows.

    Of course that is impossible for idiots like you, who could not care a less if the money goes mostly to dictators or not, as long as you can whine for more money and think it is the anwer for the failures of the development aid.

    More beer fog! So, your best articulation at an international co-operation policy is to mention dictators, plead poverty and talk about development aid failure. Care to put some flesh onto that rotting corpse of a foreign aid policy?

    And when you dont have the moeny to do both? If you use money of something, its away from something else.

    Percentage of GNI. Have you any idea what it means to be part of the developed world? I guess not.

    If you have only money to help that one flood victim in your country, then there wont be any development aid or any other form of aid in africa.

    More beer fog.

    Though making his way to Finland this poor flood victim must have gone through dozens of safe countries just because he wants better standard of living.

    Or he wants to find a country where there are at least a few people who speak his or her language and where a community of refugees has already been established that can help him or her better integrate.

    As you pointed out, a lot of people leaving these countries, especially at the start of conflicts, are more affluent and educated. The poorer citizens tend to flee to refugee camps across the border in neighbouring countries, such as in Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon in reference to the current conflict in Syria. Only a very tiny percentage will try to make their way further afield. Even then, an education is not a guarantee of work in the new country. An existing community is a far bigger factor.

    One of the other factors behind entering a Western country (as opposed to Russia, for example) is that the intellectual and political diaspora have better opportunities towards creating a viable and alternative political voice to represent the citizens of that country. This is true of Syria currently, is true of Somalia, and was true of Libya and Tunisia. It is far easier and more effective to advocate for political and social change from the safety and platform of European countries.

    However, your fag-packet international diplomacy decrees that those intellectuals and political dissidents would be forced to remain in those countries where they will almost certainly be executed, meaning that there is even less chance of a viable alternative to dictatorship or prolonged civil war. An example, Brig Gen Manaf Tlas is currently holed up in Paris, along with several other Syrian dissidents. How long do you think he would survive if he was shipped off back to Syria?

    And this is why I argued it makes more sense to help them near they own country where these issues would not be nearly as problematic as they are here.

    Which ignores the great many success stories and the fact that immigrants perform a great many jobs in Western countries that would otherwise bring economic decline in service industries without them.

    If you were more willing to use even a tiny part of that expensive education that you were given, you would realise that the commitments that Finland makes to these international institutions is one of the things that makes Finland an advanced democracy.

    Still, there is always the path of Belarus to follow. You never know, under your wise leadership, Finland may even look to become a net receiver of aid rather than a contributor. I imagine you would class that as some kind of success, given the way you are pleading Finland’s poverty on this issue!

  10. Jssk

    Don’t your so-called “relatively wealthy” have a right to asylum? Your reasoning is odd. It reflects the following: Bring only those that are starving because they cannot come and apply for asylum. No refugees = no problem (sic!).

    The point is that those people, more often than not are economic refugees. There is a problem but i dont believe we can solve it. If you want you can always support colonising africa

  11. JusticeDemon

    Jssk

    The point is that those people, more often than not are economic refugees.

    You obviously wish that this was so, but you have absolutely no evidence for your view. None at all. The civil war in Somalia has been so brutal that even the USA was unable to enforce any kind of peace there. The civil war in the Balkans was characterised by some of the worst atrocities seen in Europe since the Second World War. These are the conditions from which some displaced individuals made it to Finland. You are unable to accept this concrete fact, and so instead you choose to spread lies about people who have seen and managed to escape the kind of suffering that you cannot even begin to imagine.

    The motivation for those lies? Your inability to accept people of colour who disapprove of your own degenerate lifestyle, and who dare to suggest that there are better things to do with your life than getting drunk and fighting over women in dingy suburban bars while your parents are sent to rot in some old folks’ home.

    And when you have sobered up and have to emerge from behind the anonymity of your keyboard to discuss these matters in civilised company, you inevitably agree that the only viable and intelligent long-term policy towards human beings who are displaced by conflict and environmental disaster is precisely the policy that we currently have: effective integration.

    • tp1

      Your inability to accept people of colour

      Isn’t anyone else bothered by this, how JusticeDemon categorizes people? “people of colour”???

      To me that is a school book example of racism.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –To me that is a school book example of racism.

      tp1, why is this racism? Are you also using the reverse-racism argument to justify your prejudices?

  12. Jssk

    The motivation for those lies? Your inability to accept people of colour who disapprove of your own degenerate lifestyle, and who dare to suggest that there are better things to do with your life than getting drunk and fighting over women in dingy suburban bars while your parents are sent to rot in some old folks’ home.

    And when you have sobered up and have to emerge from behind the anonymity of your keyboard to discuss these matters in civilised company, you inevitably agree that the only viable and intelligent long-term policy towards human beings who are displaced by conflict and environmental disaster is precisely the policy that we currently have: effective integration.

    Call me a “typical finnish stabber-dunkard” or anything, not a single fuck was given. Have you presented any evidence that there is no economic refugeees?

    You are unable to accept this concrete fact, and so instead you choose to spread lies about people who have seen and managed to escape the kind of suffering that you cannot even begin to imagine.”

    The issue is more complex than “people are suffering we must help them all”. Also i never denied that atrocities are commited in conflicts.

    • JusticeDemon

      Jssk

      Have you presented any evidence that there is no economic refugeees?

      The assertion was YOURS to prove. Suggesting that it must be true unless someone can prove a negative is epähiket reasoning of the worst kind. Improbatur is your grade.

      You asserted the following:

      The point is that those people, more often than not are economic refugees.

      This is a concrete claim that more than half of the immigrants in Finland who have been displaced from zones of conflict or environmental disaster had no motivation to migrate other than a desire to enrich themselves economically. Their leave to remain in Finland, issued by Finnish specialised professional public servants after exacting investigation, was specifically based on humanitarian grounds. You are claiming that more than 50 per cent of those administrative decisions were incorrect.

      I realise that your epähiket drinking buddies do not ask you to justify your claims, but there is a difference between bar room bullshit and serious public policy. You have offered absolutely no evidence for your outrageous assertion, and it clearly is yours to prove.

      The issue is more complex than “people are suffering we must help them all”. Also i never denied that atrocities are commited in conflicts.

      Mark has taken you up conclusively on this point. I can’t help you when your car has broken down in a blizzard, because there are millions of motorists and I can’t help them all, so I will leave you to freeze to death. Splendid example of epähiket thinking, and once again your grade is Improbatur.

      Get back to us when you can focus on the concrete FACT of spontaneous humanitarian migration and come up with a better policy than efficient immigrant integration.

  13. Mark

    TP1

    Isn’t anyone else bothered by this, how JusticeDemon categorizes people? “people of colour”???

    To me that is a school book example of racism.

    That’s because you know nothing about racism, period!! God, the cheek of some people, coming on here calling us racist. How you folks can look in the mirror and call yourselves honest, I really don’t know.

    • tp1

      That categorization includes a claim that “people of colour” are somehow of lower than other people and that’s why they should be risen at the same level as other people. That’s why I say it is racism.

      I know you have good intentions but still there is something inside you that think people are of different value based on their skin colour and that really is a school book example of racism.

  14. Mark

    Jssk

    The point is that those people, more often than not are economic refugees. There is a problem but i dont believe we can solve it. If you want you can always support colonising africa

    I have known hundreds of refugees, mostly in the UK while I worked in the voluntary sector with refugee integration. I can tell you now for a fact that I saw doctors, nurses, dentists, teachers, economists and senior civil servants as cleaners on minimum wage.

    Not for one second could you say that these people were in a better financial situation than they were back home. Many left all of their assets, and for many, even their skills were not easily transferable. I’m sure there are many parallels in Finland. To describe people like this as economic refugees is grossly ignorant.

    These people have lost everything, and you would even strip away their dignity. You are scum. Every society has scum, and you are it!

    You hunt after some of the most vulnerable people, in more ways than one, and you smear, lie, and denigrate these people, for no better reason than you somehow feel threatened, as if you could no longer go on being a Finn, as having a few extra foreigners in Finland suddenly made you forget who you were.

    You are a political predator, Jssk, seeking out the vulnerable so you can ‘have your way’ with them! You are the scum of society, feeding on the dregs of bitterness and cultural myopia!

  15. JusticeDemon

    tp1

    Isn’t anyone else bothered by this, how JusticeDemon categorizes people? “people of colour”???

    To me that is a school book example of racism.

     
     
                                  🙂 LoL 🙂
     

    You can be sure that we shall remember your appeal for politically correct language.

    Now let’s now hear precisely what you think is wrong with this USAmerican expression, as I used it in this context.

    Looking forward to more laughs… 🙂

  16. tp1

    tp1, why is this racism? Are you also using the reverse-racism argument to justify your prejudices?

    I don’t have any prejudices for anyone, so that is kind of an irrelevant question.

    To me racism is putting people in categories based on their ethnic/cultural/religious/etc. background and treating them differently because of that.

    When someone says “people of colour” it includes a claim that these people of colour are somehow different than just people. I don’t like the idea that white people are categorized as “people” and black people are categorized as “people of colour”. We all have skin which is of some colour, so that categorization is really disturbing and gives impression that “people of colour” are lower than “people”.

    • JusticeDemon

      All of this is in your mind only, tp1.

      Use your brain for a change. Look back at what I said, and what attitude I was commenting on. Jssk quite evidently has a problem relating to anyone who is visibly different, and this is largely because that difference all too often damns Jssk.

      Many humanitarian immigrants – perhaps a majority of those with a cutaneous melanin density differing from that of Jssk – exemplify cultures that respect their elders. Jssk is happy to pack elderly parents off to an old folks’ home, “because that is the Finnish way”. Many humanitarian immigrants, perhaps a majority, are opposed to the typical rural-suburban ABC-asemaväki lifestyle that regards alcoholic intoxication and street fighting as some kind of badge of masculinity. Jssk recognises this in the mirror and would like to justify it as part and parcel of what it means to be a Finn. The precise words were:

      Call me a “typical finnish stabber-dunkard” or anything, not a single fuck was given.

      The truth is, nevertheless, that this characterisation is way too close for comfort. The solution for Jssk is to spread absurd lies about humanitarian immigrants – a standard fascist dehumanising and scapegoating tactic that will be familiar to anyone who has read early 20th century history. Jssk was not even aware that those lies also show that highly educated and trained Finnish specialist public servants are colossally incompetent. Obviously there is no need to research intelligent policy options when all you really need to do is listen to the local Barney Gumble.

      Barney Gumble

    • Mark

      I don’t have any prejudices for anyone, so that is kind of an irrelevant question.

      I doubt that. Anyone with a modicum of self-awareness will realise they have prejudices, the question is how you let those prejudices affect your judgement or whether you recognise your prejudices for what they are, shorthand thinking based on vague categories.

      When someone says “people of colour” it includes a claim that these people of colour are somehow different than just people.

      Really? I see no reason to conclude that. The fact of the matter is that different skin tones exist. Even more of a fact is that Western cultures have constructed categories of ‘black’ and ‘white’ that have had profound political consequences for the individuals unfortunate enough to fall into the category of ‘black’. To deny this would be, well, along the lines of demanding that Barbie should be made the Secretary General of the UN, i.e. someone has clearly lost it!

      I don’t like the idea that white people are categorized as “people” and black people are categorized as “people of colour”

      And yet you have no problem with Allah-oho slagging off Somalis, per se! Funny that!

      It seems you only object to speaking about colour when your opponents choose to do it. But when your Master does it, you have no objection! Interesting!

      We all have skin which is of some colour, so that categorization is really disturbing and gives impression that “people of colour” are lower than “people”.

      Actually, I have no problem with understanding ‘people of colour’ as referring to people who are just as much people as other people. In fact, in America, where this term originated, it has been used often by ‘people of colour’ as a general reference aimed at deconstructing the notion of ‘black’, a word that carries with it a torrid history.

      That people search for a new way to frame this debate is no surprise. That racist bigots like you don’t understand this is also no surprise. That you try to jump on this as a means of reversing the ‘racist’ argument is getting to be ‘old hat’. Can’t you come up with anything else?

      tp1. If you have no problem with a person’s skin colour, does that mean that you also understand fully the historically importance of skin colour and don’t act to underplay its significance to immigration debates?

      You do recognise that racism is an issue in regard to immigration debates, no?

  17. Jssk

    Jssk quite evidently has a problem relating to anyone who is visibly different, and this is largely because that difference all too often damns Jssk

    Where did i imply that?

    Jssk is happy to pack elderly parents off to an old folks’ home, “because that is the Finnish way”.

    Well im actually against that. I dont hope for anyone to end up in a old folks home.

    What i ment with “not a single fuck was given”, is that people wont take you seriously if you continuously call people “racist!” “drunkard!” “fascist!” with no reason. One being intelligence doesnt mean i should act like him or have the same ideology. If you want to play the nazi card, many of 3rd reichs highest officials were very intelligent.

    This is democracy, Your local “Barney Gumbles” get to vote. I understand you would propably prefer meritocracy of dictature.

    • JusticeDemon

      Jssk

      Now you are really in a pickle, aren’t you? How can you get across your message of prejudice when you are forced to agree on all points of detail?

      Well im actually against that. I dont hope for anyone to end up in a old folks home.

         Who the hell gave you the right to criticise how most Finns treat their parents? That’s evil Moslem talk! If you can’t accept the Finnish way of life, then perhaps you should go and live somewhere else.

      You don’t like being called out as a racist drunk with a fascist outlook on social affairs – even while you are parroting the unreflective opinions and manifest ignorance of the local keski-olut baari as sufficient justification for government policy – but it’s perfectly OK for you to characterise humanitarian immigrants as economic refugees and Finnish immigration officials as grossly incompetent with no justification whatsoever. Is that how it works when you make it up as you go along?

      One word of friendly advice: if you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, make sure you remember to put them on first.

      This is democracy, Your local “Barney Gumbles” get to vote. I understand you would propably prefer meritocracy of dictature.

      Lord give me strength! Another Finn in need of a basic civics lesson. This is representative democracy mediated through a system of political parties. Barney Gumble gets to vote for the candidate representatives of specialised political associations, which then in turn gain the authority to implement general public policy programmes. That implementation is based on specialist advice about how to reconcile disparate policy objectives within the highly complex machinery of a constitutional State and an international community.

      Even Barney, when sober, recognises that government is about much more than gut feeling. The question is, do you?

  18. Mark

    JD

    Obviously there is no need to research intelligent policy options when all you really need to do is listen to the local Barney Gumble.

    😀 great image!

  19. tp1

    And yet you have no problem with Allah-oho slagging off Somalis, per se! Funny that!

    It seems you only object to speaking about colour when your opponents choose to do it. But when your Master does it, you have no objection! Interesting!

    And here’s more categorization. You have already categorized me as somekind of Halla-aho follower. That is your problem, you fail to see people as individuals, like you somekind of need to put everyone in some box and then make assumption about that person based on the box.

    That is exactly similar as what racism is.

    And when I say I don’t have prejudices against anyone, you just arrogantly say that “yes you do, you just don’t recognize it”. Why do you feel so superior to anyone who doesn’t agree with you on something? Are you trying to compensate the fact that you yourself have some much prejudice and you can’t stand the fact that some other person is free of prejudices?

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      So you have no prejudices?

      On the Finnish Supreme Court:

      You can’t really trust the KKO nowadays to be unbiased. There is clearly an agenda which is followed there and that has nothing to do with justice.

      On the architects of Finnish liberal democracy:

      Kukkahattutätis are the cancer of the human kind.

      On the Finnish criminal justice system:

      Can’t you see that Finnish justice system is corrupted piece of shit. Rapists walk free, killers walk free. But if you dare to speak badly about immigrants or download illegal music, then you go to jail.

      While here your guard was completely down. Look at what you assert as facts.

      An interesting way for you to express your lack of prejudice, and yes, Farang, you are busted (and have been for some time).

  20. tp1

    Your message just shows that you don’t know what prejudice means.

    Prejudice means that you form your opinion without any facts or experiences.

  21. Mark

    tp1

    You are not quite correct in your definition of prejudice, as the point is that the opinions are formed beforehand, or before adequately considering facts or knowledge.

    I think referring to the Finnish justice system as a ‘corrupted piece of shit’ probably counts as prejudice, especially as you offered no ‘facts’ to support the claim.

  22. tp1

    JD: If I am arguing with you about some matter and it seems that you don’t understand no matter how I try to explain, then the fact is that you are interpreting something differently than I am. If that is the explanation, then what is wrong with saying it out loud? Because it’s no use to continue the discussion if we both base our comments to different assumptions/interpretations?

    • JusticeDemon

      Farang, O Wise One

      We get it – really we do. You are never, ever wrong. Like your convicted racist criminal Master, you are only misunderstood by people who are not as smart as you are.

      Now you can explain how we misunderstood your declaration made at 8:58 pm on 10 May 2012:

      This was my last message here, and that’s a promise I’m going to keep.

      Farewell!

           given that you commented again at 3.27 pm on 11 June 2012 and have commented more than one hundred times since then.

      What have we misunderstood, O Wise One? You can try to argue:

      1. that “last” means “most recent” (as in “your last broken promise”), as opposed to “final – coming after all others in time or order”,

      2. that “message” referred only to the preceding paragraph (which is special in some hitherto unspecified way that you haven’t thought of yet) and not to commenting in general on Migrant Tales,

      3. that “here” referred solely to the thread in question, and not to other threads on Migrant Tales (this is your most plausible lie in my opinion, but who am I to analyse your options?),

      4. that a “promise” really means something other than a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that guarantees that a particular thing will happen, or

      5. that “keep” means something other than honour or fulfill a commitment or undertaking.

      Whichever way you argue, make sure to declare that your interpretation is the only obvious one and that the rest of us must be mentally deficient for not understanding that this is what you must have meant, and instead foolishly assuming that we had seen the last of your drivel on Migrant Tales.

      Al Capone famously considered himself an unappreciated and misunderstood public benefactor. Such is the lot of superior beings, O Wise One.

      Al Farang

  23. Mark

    tp1

    Because it’s no use to continue the discussion if we both base our comments to different assumptions/interpretations?

    I find this quite a strange comment. If we were just putting our intellectual wares in the shop window and letting people choose, then perhaps your comment would be reasonable. But the point of debate is to QUESTION one’s own and other people’s assumptions as a means to arrive at more reliable knowledge. That JD is testing your assumptions should not be such a surprise and is perfectly consistent with constructive debate.

    • tp1

      No Mark, that’s not how it works. For example in Halla-aho’s case it was clear what he said and meant (his opinion about the conviction) but still you guys continued to argue the matter only becaue it was written in a way that the part of the sentence left room for interpretation. But from the whole text it was 100% clear what was meant.

      So it is not very healthy discussion if other party just keep on insisting that “Halla-aho says A” while it is very obvious that it is not the case.

      It’s futile to continue discussion and debate in those circumstances. If person is intellectual enough, he will know that there is no way to get any different outcome of the debate and it is wise to stop.

      I’ve heard a good definition for madness: Doing same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

  24. tp1

    JusticeDemon: It is quite amusing that you spend so much time writing a long messages about whether or not there is some misunderstanding, while it is obvious to everyone that I just broke my promise. No misunderstandings.

    • JusticeDemon

      tp1

      it is obvious to everyone that I just broke my promise. No misunderstandings.

      In other words, you are dishonest.

      Now I think it’s time to examine your overall trolling strategy and see what we have learned.

      The main reason why Farang disappeared and tp1 was born is not hard to find. We just need to examine what drove you away last time:

      I stand by my earlier point that you are trying to use Migrant Tales as a platform for presenting racist propaganda under a third-person disclaimer, and if you refuse to specify the third person concerned, then this is merely your propaganda and you deserve to be called a racist for presenting it.

      You were rumbled.

      The basic Farang strategy is to fasten on some news item that concerns a foreigner in Finland, and then try to engage us in discussion about how some unidentified “others” variously characterised as “unintelligent”, “imbeciles” and so on (about 30 per cent of the Finnish population in your opinion) might draw mistaken conclusions from that news item. When the discussion begins, Farang will try to question every attempt at analysis from an assumption of anti-white bias.

      The game of “redefining terms” is an adjunct to this overall trolling process. You resort to it whenever you get your butt kicked in debate. Indeed your last message is the first time you have simply admitted fault and not tried to blame it on some kind of absurd difference of interpretation. No points for this, of course, as that route was blocked in advance.

      ***

      We are still defining our draft principles for contributors and commenters, but until these appear the community standards of the Guardian website provide a handy yardstick for assessing this kind of online behaviour:

      1. We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated.

         Farang had by far the highest rate of dishing out personal abuse on this site for quite a long time, and so did tp1 until our moderators finally put you in the filter bin.

      2. We acknowledge criticism of the articles we publish, but will not allow persistent misrepresentation of the Guardian and our journalists to be published on our website. For the sake of robust debate, we will distinguish between constructive, focused argument and smear tactics.

         Farang and tp1 have consistently sought to portray the author and editors of Migrant Tales as racists, even though the aims and purposes of this forum are completely clear.

      5. We will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of hate-speech, or contributions that could be interpreted as such.
      6. We will remove any content that may put us in legal jeopardy

         Farang had at least two comments deleted by a moderator (here and here) when attempting to use Migrant Tales as a platform for ethnic incitement.

      The Guardian would have banned you long ago.

Leave a Reply