PS MP Hakkarainen of Finland launches new attack against immigrants and Muslims

by , under Enrique

Perussuomalaiset (PS) MP Teuvo Hakkarainen, who suggested two years ago that homosexuals, lesbians and Somalians should be relocated to the Åland Islands, has launched a fresh attack against immigrants and Muslims on a blog entry.

Sensible people understand that generalizing about different groups, like Hakkarainen does, is not only wrong but racist.

Migrant Tales strongly condemns this type of hate speech that only serves to fuel ethnic hatred and further Hakkarainen’s questionable political career. We not only condemn the PS MP’s words, but the silence of Finland’s political establishment, especially that of the PS.

Kuvankaappaus 2013-8-19 kello 20.16.06
Read original blog entry here.

Hakkarainen, who represents the Central Finnish town of Viitasaari where there are few to no Muslims, was the first part of the PS tragic-comic political play that kicked off after the historic April 2011 elections.

Watch what the newly elected MP had to say about Muslims in this video English subtitles.

At that time, PS chairman Timo Soini defended politicians like Hakkarainen with a poker face by claiming there wasn’t one racist running for office.

According to Hakkarainen’s latest blog entry, the government doesn’t want to admit that Finland allows too many migrants to the country, which cost too much to upkeep and are a drain on the country.

He claims that too many immigrants live off social welfare and are ”increasingly guilty of crimes, which were previously rare, among others, like gang rape.”

According to the PS MP, whose drinking problems have been well-documented by the media, it is every Muslim’s “honor and responsibility” to kill and annihilate every religion and Jews, according to the Koran. ”The West is being flooded by millions of Muslims inside a wooden Trojan horse…” he wrote.

Citing a story on Turun Sanomat, he claims that there are Muslim extremists concentrated in Turku ready to declare jihad.

Hakkarainen slammed Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, who he called an ”imam” and supporter of deposed Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Is Hakkarainen for real or is he a political buffoon, who likes to amuse hard-core racists like himself?

He is for real. He is one of the many faces of intolerance and nationalism of Finland today kept intact by society’s near-silence.

  1. Joonas

    It is hard to understand how it is possible that Hakkarainen is still in politics and who are the people who voted for him. I can’t remember any other MT who has been obnoxious as he is (well, Tony Halme comes close).

  2. ohdake

    It is really a shame that PS have such representatives among their ranks. It alienates the whole party for me. Which is why i can’t bring myself to vote for any one in that party even the odd cases when i happen to agree with a PS candidate on certain views – as due to the use of d’Hondt type election mathematics in Finland any vote you give in election goes primarily to the party and only secondarily to the actual candidate.

  3. Mark

    Why is it a shame, Ohdake? You like their policies but you hate their personalities? Did you ever consider there might be a link? 🙂

    • ohdake

      As so very often you again get the matter totally wrong. But then again your prejudice in the issue is also very telling.

      It is a shame because i know personally a PS candidate whom i otherwise could vote for if he were not listed in that party. In other words there happens to exists a PS candidate whose personality and views are such that i might vote for him, but the mismatch between my views and the overall views or policies (or lack of them) with other PS candidates and also of PS party as a whole makes that impossible. So I will not vote for him. All of that is because you can not vote just for a person in Finnish elections (apart from Presidential elections) as the votes always translate to the party (or electoral alliance) behind the candidate.

      I’m not quite sure what kind of link there might be. If anything the above shows that you can not judge a book by its covers like you have appear to do Mark.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –As so very often you again get the matter totally wrong. But then again your prejudice in the issue is also very telling.

      Ohdake, we have a long, long list of racist statements made by some PS candidates. Always Timo Soini is playing them down and the media allows him to get away with murder.

      If we’re honest, it’s not only a PS problem, even if that party has used anti-immigration as a political weapon.

      All those things that were said in the 1970s and 1980s by the National Front and Enoch Powell have been forgotten by history. They’ve been forgotten because they were lies and because they offer no wisdom to future generations. The same will happen with people like Jussi Halla-aho, James Hirvisaari, Teuvo Hakkarainen and others. They’ll be forgotten. Some researcher may, however, use what they said to show how Finland lived through one of its worst modern phases of intolerance and racism.

      The intolerance that the PS spewed against Muslims, immigrants and other minorities will be shown as the main factors that led to the party’s eventual political demise.

      Here’s what we wrote about the 2011-15 period:http://www.migranttales.net/migrant-tales-march-15-2012-finlands-darkest-period-2011-15/

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      As so very often you again get the matter totally wrong. But then again your prejudice in the issue is also very telling.

      So asking you a question is ‘getting the matter wrong’? lolol. What a manipulator you are, Ohdake!!!!

      It is a shame because i know personally a PS candidate whom i otherwise could vote for if he were not listed in that party. In other words there happens to exists a PS candidate whose personality and views are such that i might vote for him, but the mismatch between my views and the overall views or policies (or lack of them) with other PS candidates and also of PS party as a whole makes that impossible

      Hmm. I’m not sure this really answers the question. First, you don’t say what it is about this person that you agree with. Second, you don’t say why this person’s views are somehow contradicted by other members of the party. My advice though would be to vote for this candidate, because PS is not going to moderate unless people like you choose to vote for those moderates in the party.

      So I will not vote for him. All of that is because you can not vote just for a person in Finnish elections (apart from Presidential elections) as the votes always translate to the party (or electoral alliance) behind the candidate.

      Yes, the so-called ‘strategic vote’, i.e. don’t cast a vote that will likely have no influence. The problem is that if there are enough people who choose NOT to vote strategically, then this CAN ifluence an election. A politician that convinces you that ONLY a strategic vote really counts is a politician that has probably removed what little chance there was for a ‘surprise’. Surprise results used to happen a lot more often before strategic voting helped to bring the unpredictable masses back into line. However, if not enough people are going to vote for your candidate, then I guess PS, like you say, is not the party for you.

      I’m not quite sure what kind of link there might be. If anything the above shows that you can not judge a book by its covers like you have appear to do Mark.

      Nice pivot Ohdake, towards having a dig at me. But there is not thrust behind it, because you yourself are stuck on this question. Based on the views of one immigration skeptic candidate, you could vote for PS, but given the views of a great many popular PS candidates, you might be helping to vote in a right bunch of idiots. You are the one in a quandry here and you are the one having to make a judgement. I’m merely pointing out the fact that the reason you dislike these people is that the policies they follow are intrinsically the kind that bring out the worst in people. Of course, you can rationalise the debate, intellectualise it, make it into a clean philosophical and polical gambit, much like Halla-aho tries to do, but in the end, it’s what you leave out in the way of ‘real compassion’ and ‘real respect for human rights’ that gives away the dead and rotten core.

      Okay, I made a judgement there, for sure. But then, you already condemned me for that, even when I didn’t pass judgement, so what the heck. Answer me this, Ohdake, how can a debate that focuses fundamentally on the different ‘values’ of different immigrants NOT result in a public discourse that creates and promotes different levels of citizenship for people? As that different status is fundamentally a ‘caste system’, it is also fundamentally AN ASSAULT on basic rights. So at what point do you stand up and actually start fighting for those rights of equality and the right to dignity, which so many of our grandparents fought wars to try to protect?

    • ohdake

      So asking you a question is ‘getting the matter wrong’? lolol. What a manipulator you are, Ohdake!!!!

      I wasn’t asking any questions in that particular phrase so i can’t really help but wonder your habit of grasping singular words and twisting them to your purpose.

      Hmm. I’m not sure this really answers the question. First, you don’t say what it is about this person that you agree with. Second, you don’t say why this person’s views are somehow contradicted by other members of the party. My advice though would be to vote for this candidate, because PS is not going to moderate unless people like you choose to vote for those moderates in the party.

      Mainly because he has walked against the party lines before – in other parties, partially a reason why he is PS ‘lines’ now (sort of political refugee…). And no one is required to tell why they would vote for any particular candidate. Suffice to say his views do run contrary to the PS party line in some matters (like immigration) and he tends to vote (in town council) how HE thinks is right instead of following the party line & discipline.

      Yes, the so-called ‘strategic vote’, i.e. don’t cast a vote that will likely have no influence. The problem is that if there are enough people who choose NOT to vote strategically, then this CAN ifluence an election. A politician that convinces you that ONLY a strategic vote really counts is a politician that has probably removed what little chance there was for a ‘surprise’. Surprise results used to happen a lot more often before strategic voting helped to bring the unpredictable masses back into line. However, if not enough people are going to vote for your candidate, then I guess PS, like you say, is not the party for you.

      Every vote has influence, problem is that with the party or electoral alliance in the background the influence could well contrary to the one you were hoping that it would have. Especially when the party discipline tends to be quite strongly enforced. All which makes it rather pointless to vote for a person instead of a party in modern day Finland.

      Based on the views of one immigration skeptic candidate, you could vote for PS, but given the views of a great many popular PS candidates, you might be helping to vote in a right bunch of idiots.

      I never said what that particular persons stance towards immigration was. But yes, since any vote for him could lead to some one in that ‘right bunch of idiots’ getting through it is enough of a reason to avoid voting him, or any one else in that party for that matter.

      Answer me this, Ohdake, how can a debate that focuses fundamentally on the different ‘values’ of different immigrants NOT result in a public discourse that creates and promotes different levels of citizenship for people? As that different status is fundamentally a ‘caste system’, it is also fundamentally AN ASSAULT on basic rights. So at what point do you stand up and actually start fighting for those rights of equality and the right to dignity, which so many of our grandparents fought wars to try to protect?

      I’m not quite sure that follow you. People here have argued that different values (and needs) of different immigrants need to be taken into account and understood but you argue that any discussion of such differences only creates further gaps to the society? Because you can’t really have both. As to the rest it makes even less sense.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      People here have argued that different values (and needs) of different immigrants need to be taken into account and understood but you argue that any discussion of such differences only creates further gaps to the society?

      Well, let’s see now, as I am one of the persons you refer to who argues that immigrant needs should be taken into account, would I then be referring to this same thing when I condemn the kind of judgemental and discriminatory practice of talking down about immigrants during election cycles?

      We need to understand and accept that immigrants have specialised needs and that the authorities and to some extent the public should be aware of those and seek to support immigrants. Demanding they ‘behave’ just like Finns is rather pointless ethnocentric posturing. The kind of ‘differences’ attached to immigrants that I object to are not the specific health care, employment or social needs, but rather the idea that their culture is immediately inferior and ‘alien’, that they have no right to debate on the basis of their own cultural viewpoints, that they are excessively criminal, lazy or intellectually inferior, points which are implied over and over in the political debates about the ‘differences’ that come with immigrants from outside Europe or the West.

      Let’s see what you can do to deliberately misunderstand me this time!

    • Enrique Tessieri

      Jonas, you make some good points. I mentioned in the blog entry that some media in Finland are not echoing the racist claims of some PS candidates before the April 2011 election. It is a good sign that parties like the PS are angry with the media, which in turn shows that their may have been a shift.

      Things were very, very bad before April 2011. They have got better but there is still a lot of room for improvement. Timo Soini still gets away with murder by playing down the racist outbursts in his party and, as we saw recently, Teuvo Hakkarainen’s blog got ample coverage from the media. How many of them wrote an editorial and stated that what he wrote is racist and unacceptable in our society? How many parties condemned what he said? OK, there were the Social Democrats, the Swedish People’s Party…still too few.

      There are also still too few immigrant and visible minority voices giving their views. If there is an issue with immigrants, it usually a white person giving his or her opinion.

      If you look at the rise of the PS and letting racism out of the cage so to speak, the media is partly to blame.

    • ohdake

      Well, let’s see now, as I am one of the persons you refer to who argues that immigrant needs should be taken into account, would I then be referring to this same thing when I condemn the kind of judgemental and discriminatory practice of talking down about immigrants during election cycles?

      Who knows? I certainly do not know you so I can not make such a judgement. I have no way of telling what would be out of character for you and what wouldn’t be. Temporary insanity seems as good explanation for your comments as any.

      The kind of ‘differences’ attached to immigrants that I object to are not the specific health care, employment or social needs, but rather the idea that their culture is immediately inferior and ‘alien’, that they have no right to debate on the basis of their own cultural viewpoints, that they are excessively criminal, lazy or intellectually inferior, points which are implied over and over in the political debates about the ‘differences’ that come with immigrants from outside Europe or the West.

      Immigrants also need to understand that they can not expect the things to be the same as in their former homeland. Nothing works that way. Nor can immigrants expect that their cultural values could supplant or replace the existing values. That is not going to happen either. Not in Finland nor in any other country. Regardless of your cultural background you need to live with the mainstream population and in their culture.

      No one is saying that their culture would be inferior but they also need to adapt themselves to the surrounding society. Nor is there any one stating that immigrants couldn’t argue their viewpoints however complaining that anything affecting immigrants negatively is racist does not exactly accomplish that. I don’t really care what people try to accomplish with such methods but they only create resentment towards themselves without achieving anything.

      As to being excessively criminal, lazy or intellectually inferior the only solution i can see is to prove them (i.e. the statistics) wrong. However what i perceive to be an underlying problem is that the overall level of education (especially in languages – FI, SW, EN – and skills required in Finland) of 1st generation immigrants tends to be lower than that of native Finns partly because native Finns are often over-educated to begin with. Low education and likely resulting employment issues tends to correlate with higher crime rate more than any cultural or ethnic background. But i have never heard any valid solutions to that underlying issue.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      I have no way of telling what would be out of character for you

      So that justifies you insinuating hypocracy? Yeah, right…just because you don’t know me. But of course, I could just be ‘temporarily insane’, based on my previous comments. 🙂 Ohdake, you are very polite, but you still write with the manners of a God damn snake!

      Immigrants also need to understand that they can not expect the things to be the same as in their former homeland.

      I have never met an immigrant that does. Indeed, such a view of immigrants is rather childish and unrealistic.

      Nor can immigrants expect that their cultural values could supplant or replace the existing values.

      Most immigrants I know value the same things as Finns: Family bonds, peace, opportunities to work, opportunities to progress and learn, a decent living environment, and of course, a basic level of civil respect.

      However, even if there was a value, such as with Halal meat, where a foreigner wanted to see this ‘supplant’ or even stand alongside existing values or methods of meat production, then they have EVERY RIGHT to advocate for that, to be politically and socially active in that cause. To tell them they cannot do this JUST because they are foreigners is plain racist. By all means disagree or even advocate something different, but don’t question their right to function as free citizens in this society.

      That is not going to happen either. Not in Finland nor in any other country.

      If we take the Halal meat example, this is exactly what happened in the UK. The muslim population has increased and so has the number of outlets providing this specialised service, though of course Kosher meat has always been available up to a point. Likewise, while ‘sharia law’ does not operate in the UK, Sharia councils do serve the muslim community on matters of family and civil disputes, though like any system, it is subject to criticism. Work is being done to improve the representation of women in these cases and this is to be welcomed and expected. The idea that the system has NO legitimacy because it is still improving is also clearly wrong-headed.

      Regardless of your cultural background you need to live with the mainstream population and in their culture.

      What is culture Ohdake? Laws, music, poetry, writings, language, comedy, entertainment, customs, festivals, religious practices etc.? What does it mean to live ‘with’ the mainstream? Do you always follow the mainstream? Does it mean that you are going to tell people what to eat, what to speak, what to believe, because it doesn’t fit to the mainstream? The only question is that the cultural expression is legal. That’s it. Otherwise, nobody yapping and gobbing in the political arenas has any business to telling immigrants in Finland what ‘culture’ they have to follow.

      Anyhow, it’s a stupid argument. The kids of immigrants usually absorb a mix of the host and parental culture and later with intermarriage, culture becomes diluted anyway. Add to this mix the push and pull of individuality and personal preferences, and you can see that talking about culture as if it was a single monolithic structure that you either allow or not is simply foolishness.

      No one is saying that their culture would be inferior

      Really….what planet you living on.

      As to being excessively criminal, lazy or intellectually inferior the only solution i can see is to prove them (i.e. the statistics) wrong.

      In most cases it’s not about proving statistics wrong, but rather using and understanding statistics correctly.

      Yes, 1st gen immigrants will have lower level of skills, particularly as expressed in the host language. I know economists, doctors, dentists, teachers etc who have to work as cleaners because their language skills mean they cannot perform the tasks they might otherwise be able to. This isn’t necessarily a ‘level of education’ problem, but is often wrapped up in language problems and also a different form of certification for professionals or trades in different countries. However, it is also clear that the kinds of jobs that are available in the economy are the ones requiring only basic levels of training and qualification, so this shouldn’t be a big issue in itself as long as the Finnish government have an effective program of retraining for immigrants.

      Low education and likely resulting employment issues tends to correlate with higher crime rate more than any cultural or ethnic background.

      That’s a bit of a leap, but yes, the issue is one of deprivation, not simply ‘low education’. There needs to be jobs, low levels of discrimination, both in the housing markets and in the job markets, to avoid ghettoisation. That’s an issue for both immigrants and the host nation to work to avoid.

      But i have never heard any valid solutions to that underlying issue.

      What solutions have you heard that were invalid?

    • ohdake

      However, even if there was a value, such as with Halal meat, where a foreigner wanted to see this ‘supplant’ or even stand alongside existing values or methods of meat production, then they have EVERY RIGHT to advocate for that, to be politically and socially active in that cause. To tell them they cannot do this JUST because they are foreigners is plain racist. By all means disagree or even advocate something different, but don’t question their right to function as free citizens in this society.

      There are quite a few other issues with the example you provided. That is problems with existing legislation – i could be wrong but i have understood that animal torture, i.e. not stunning the animal before the slaughter, is illegal. Religion is not exactly a reason enough to cause unnecessary suffering to animals – that is not racism but a cultural value. Which is somewhat problematic for some of the Halal & Kosher slaughterers. Other comes simply from the market pressure, if there is no market for certain goods then they won’t be coming to the stores. Stores have freedom to operate in this respect, no law can affect that.

      What is culture Ohdake? Laws, music, poetry, writings, language, comedy, entertainment, customs, festivals, religious practices etc.? What does it mean to live ‘with’ the mainstream? Do you always follow the mainstream? Does it mean that you are going to tell people what to eat, what to speak, what to believe, because it doesn’t fit to the mainstream? The only question is that the cultural expression is legal. That’s it. Otherwise, nobody yapping and gobbing in the political arenas has any business to telling immigrants in Finland what ‘culture’ they have to follow.

      What i meant with living with the mainstream was that immigrants shouldn’t go against the existing cultural and/or societal values. You can not expect Finns to abandon say Christmas or Juhannus for example. But instead immigrants ought learn to adapt their own culture to what already exists. In that way the culture of the immigrants ought to work to enrich the existing culture – which should produce positive end result -instead of chafing against it – which doesn’t.

      Yes, 1st gen immigrants will have lower level of skills, particularly as expressed in the host language. I know economists, doctors, dentists, teachers etc who have to work as cleaners because their language skills mean they cannot perform the tasks they might otherwise be able to. This isn’t necessarily a ‘level of education’ problem, but is often wrapped up in language problems and also a different form of certification for professionals or trades in different countries. However, it is also clear that the kinds of jobs that are available in the economy are the ones requiring only basic levels of training and qualification, so this shouldn’t be a big issue in itself as long as the Finnish government have an effective program of retraining for immigrants.

      Certification or credentials of different education institutes is indeed other factor – but there is not much that can be done if the curriculum does not match with what the Finnish versions demands there to be. AFAIK some institutes (even universities) IIRC offer chance to complete the missing studies however which does offer a way of clearing the certification issues.

      What solutions have you heard that were invalid?

      Apart from overtly racist slurs? Nothing really. It is almost impossible to educate 1st generation immigrants to be fluent enough in Finnish & Swedish & English to actually compete on a level field with native Finns – that being said it is not immigrants fault but just that Finnish language is alien to most other languages in the world.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      There are quite a few other issues with the example you provided.

      As ever. But rather than either acknowledge the point or argue it, you simply prefer to take a detour into these ‘other issues’. The issue I presented to you was having the political freedom to advocate or implement change according to their own values. As for halal, there is research (German) suggesting animals do not suffer. As for ‘forcing shopkeepers’ to stock the meat, well, that really is NOT the idea – the idea is to allow muslim butchers to sell the meat. How quickly and easily you seem to wander into the darkness in these discussions, Ohdake! 🙂

      What i meant with living with the mainstream was that immigrants shouldn’t go against the existing cultural and/or societal values.

      And what does that mean? Give me a concrete example? Don’t you mean that they shouldn’t break the law? And that’s it. Everything else is just plain old cultural freedom, preference and jostling to have your own interests well supported.

      You can not expect Finns to abandon say Christmas or Juhannus for example.

      Actually, the debate is wider than that. Some Finns are not Christians (or pagans) and have no interest in seeing their children blindly indoctrinated into these festivals. Of course most people like Christmas and sharing gifts but don’t celbrate it as a religious festival. We are back with the idea that culture comes already in many shapes and sizes and the views and beliefs of immigrants typically add to this variation but rarely do they create any really NEW problems.

      But instead immigrants ought learn to adapt their own culture to what already exists.

      Nice that you feel that the natives should be telling the newcomers what they should be doing, but what exactly do you mean by learn to adapt their culture to what exists? Give me an example? For example, does having an opinion about something constitute ‘culture’, or is this just intellectual baggage we are putting on top, which only emphasises the ‘otherness’ of some people? For instance, Ohdake, if I say it’s my opinion that Muslim women should be allowed a slot at the local bath house, much like the athletes, kids, old folks, rehab and other folks often have their own specific slot, is this part of my ‘culture’? Are you asking me to change my opinion or my ‘culture’? Also, is adding something, like adding a time, really changing Finnish culture? If it is Finnish ‘culture’ to give slots to some groups, adding another slot for Muslim women does not stop this other ‘culture’ from happening? Why do we have to think of these questions in terms of culture? Why not think about them in terms of the variation in citizen needs and demands, of which there is already plenty of variation already? Talking about culture turns this into some kind of grand narrative; not very modern way of doing things, if you ask me!

      which should produce positive end result -instead of chafing against it

      Well the chaffing might be a result of the racism and intolerance of natives who see [especially black and Mulsim] immigrants as having no right to ask for anything. What then?

      You said you had not heard any ‘valid’ solutions to the problems of employment. Now you are saying you haven’t heard any solutions. I guess you have your head buried somewhere dark and damp. The employment agencies and staff are working all the time at strategies to activate the unemployed, including and especially also ‘at risk’ groups who for whatever reason might find it harder to get work. Again, the key thing is support, empowering and also some kind of push/pull. Generally speaking, going on and on about the lack of education isn’t generally considered a very constructive approach. This is a process of activation, not condemnation! Like you say, overtly racist slurs don’t help, and neither do covert racial slurs either. 🙂

    • ohdake

      As for halal, there is research (German) suggesting animals do not suffer. As for ‘forcing shopkeepers’ to stock the meat, well, that really is NOT the idea – the idea is to allow muslim butchers to sell the meat.

      If the suffer or not according to some mysterious and obscure research is besides the point – law still dictates that they need to be stunned before slaughter regardless of religious issues. Given that primary outlet for any foodstuffs is via stores who themselves control what they take into their stocks it kinda suggested that it would have forced them. That being as said as long as the butchers follow the law i really don’t care, but bypassing it on religious grounds is something that i can not accept.

      And what does that mean? Give me a concrete example? Don’t you mean that they shouldn’t break the law? And that’s it. Everything else is just plain old cultural freedom, preference and jostling to have your own interests well supported.

      Well, not just written laws but also they shouldn’t try to impose their own standards above those of the other people (i.e. not to go against perceived common law so to speak).

      Some Finns are not Christians (or pagans) and have no interest in seeing their children blindly indoctrinated into these festivals. Of course most people like Christmas and sharing gifts but don’t celbrate it as a religious festival.

      Neither Juhannus (pagan midsummer fest) nor Christmas (pagan midwinter fest – Yule) are truly Christian festivals in Finland so i really fail to see what exactly you are after. Second pair of more common festivities, May Day and New Year have very little to do with any religion either.

      Nice that you feel that the natives should be telling the newcomers what they should be doing, but what exactly do you mean by learn to adapt their culture to what exists? Give me an example?

      If you need to ask what i meant by that then there is no point discussing any further about it.

      For instance, Ohdake, if I say it’s my opinion that Muslim women should be allowed a slot at the local bath house, much like the athletes, kids, old folks, rehab and other folks often have their own specific slot, is this part of my ‘culture’?

      Not necessarily culture but it would still reflect your values. As to your example, i can’t see such segregation (which it is regardless of its intentions) accomplishing anything positive. Some – rare few – places do offer single sex turns in bath (swimming) facilities but that is about it.

      If it is Finnish ‘culture’ to give slots to some groups, adding another slot for Muslim women does not stop this other ‘culture’ from happening?

      Locally i can’t see any slots being allocated to any group special or not… And given how Finnish society works segregated ‘slots’ for Muslim women would seem to go against the core values of the society especially when the segregation would take place on religious grounds.

      Well the chaffing might be a result of the racism and intolerance of natives who see [especially black and Mulsim] immigrants as having no right to ask for anything. What then?

      It’s quite a leap to go from actively working against the society into ‘suffering from intolerance’. If you specially work to against being integrated into the society its more about your intolerance than that of the society.

      You said you had not heard any ‘valid’ solutions to the problems of employment. Now you are saying you haven’t heard any solutions.

      Wrong, i said i have not heard real suggestions worth repeating and i certainly won’t go about even mentioning the more racist suggestions i have heard. Trying to activate the unemployed is not the same as trying to find a solution to the problem, its only trying to mitigate the resulting problems.

    • JusticeDemon

      Well, not just written laws but also they shouldn’t try to impose their own standards above those of the other people (i.e. not to go against perceived common law so to speak).

      This is quite flagrantly self-contradictory. You are laying down a rule that requires us not to lay down rules. This principle that people “shouldn’t try to impose their own standards above those of other people” is itself your own standard that you are seeking to impose above the standards of others.

      It is an ordinary consequence of considering some form of conduct to be right and good that we consider it right and good for everyone in relevantly similar circumstances. When a Finnish immigrant in the USA recommends universal publicly funded access to health services, her right to express and lobby for this policy objective is (at least ideally and by law) respected, and it is even defended by people who disagree with that objective. The same applies to a foreign immigrant in Finland, despite your evident desire to lay down a principle of intolerance for diversity.

      Enlightened societies normally seek to limit individual liberty only to the extent that is necessary to discourage individuals from seeking to limit the liberty of others. They achieve this by legislating on the understandíng that whatever is not specifically proscribed is permitted.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      If the suffer or not according to some mysterious and obscure research is besides the point

      No study that is well executed is ‘besides the point’. The research was carried out at Hanover University by Wilhelm Schultz. Anyhow, like you say, stunning and ritual slaughter can be combined, as it is in Norway and New Zealand by halal slaughtermen.

      Well, not just written laws but also they shouldn’t try to impose their own standards above those of the other people (i.e. not to go against perceived common law so to speak).

      What nonsense is this? Everyone tries to impose their own ‘standards’ over other people. I guess you are not married!! Or perhaps you simply don’t see this discussion in the normal light of day. For so many people, discussions about foreigners seem to take on an element of unreality!

      Neither Juhannus (pagan midsummer fest) nor Christmas (pagan midwinter fest – Yule) are truly Christian festivals in Finland so i really fail to see what exactly you are after

      The point is that there is no obvious concensus on religious elements in public life in Finland, so someone who adopts a ‘different’ practice is not necessarily so far away from the mainstream, given the number of atheists or non-practicing religious people in today’s society.

      If you need to ask what i meant by that then there is no point discussing any further about it.

      This is an unbelievably lazy reply. I am not in the habit of discussing with myself about what I really know. It is also customary in matters that are open to a great deal of vagueness or ambiguity to ask a speaker to clarify what they mean by their statements. Such a cheap shot reply implying I have no ideas of my own is just showing a total lack of intellectual integrity, Ohdake!!! You can do better!

      They are your words and ideas, that foreigners should ‘adapt their culture with what exists’, and it is incumbant on you to explain what you mean by this, as this is at the heart of your argument. If the reality is that these are just hot air phrases that have no real substance, then I cannot say that I would be surprised.

      Not necessarily culture but it would still reflect your values. As to your example, i can’t see such segregation (which it is regardless of its intentions) accomplishing anything positive.

      You cannot see it achieving anything positive? I guess you don’t count the views of Muslim women as particularly important? And segregation is quite the norm in this society already. I cannot say that I have come across any mixed sex toilets in Finland. Changing rooms are already segregated. Collective sauna with people outside of the family is typically not mixed either. Such a policy would be local and reflect the demographic needs of that population. This is nothing new in how local politics is supposed to operate.

      Locally i can’t see any slots being allocated to any group special or not… And given how Finnish society works segregated ‘slots’ for Muslim women would seem to go against the core values of the society especially when the segregation would take place on religious grounds.

      Well, churches are by their nature segregated institutions catering for the beliefs of particular groups. By your thinking, churches are themselves somehow against the values of Finnish society, with your implied monocultural stance. I don’t think it’s a religious issue particularly, as I’m assuming that in a women-only bathing slot, all women are allowed regardless of religious belief.

      If you specially work to against being integrated into the society its more about your intolerance than that of the society.

      Once again you are ignoring the rights of those you disagree with. Your notion of integration is that everyone somehow agrees and there is no variation and no-one asking for any kind of specialised or preferential services. That is utterly non-sensical. All of civil-society organising is about balancing and trying to satisfy the specific demands and needs of particular groups. A typical election pamphlet will, for example, talk about what can be done for young people, older people, businesses, mothers, families, homeowners, unemployed, drivers, minorities, students, etc. Even within these groups, there are various and numerous specialised needs that have to be taken into account. Society works all the time to develop ‘specialised’ services that give ‘equal’ access. Indeed, not all policies can be enacted purely because it is on ‘religious’ grounds, but where it is possible, such as enabling a room for daily prayer, then why not? Simply denying it on principle is both divisive and foolish.

      Wrong, i said i have not heard real suggestions worth repeating and i certainly won’t go about even mentioning the more racist suggestions i have heard. Trying to activate the unemployed is not the same as trying to find a solution to the problem, its only trying to mitigate the resulting problems.

      Go and read up on activation policies. Next, why can’t you actually back up what you say for a change by giving an actual example of what appears to have informed your opinions. Or are you making this up as you go along?

    • ohdake

      This is quite flagrantly self-contradictory. You are laying down a rule that requires us not to lay down rules. This principle that people “shouldn’t try to impose their own standards above those of other people” is itself your own standard that you are seeking to impose above the standards of others.

      Point was about the minority imposing rules above of those accepted by the majority. Which is rather unlikely to work not to mention going against principles of democracy.

      When a Finnish immigrant in the USA recommends universal publicly funded access to health services, her right to express and lobby for this policy objective is (at least ideally and by law) respected, and it is even defended by people who disagree with that objective. The same applies to a foreign immigrant in Finland, despite your evident desire to lay down a principle of intolerance for diversity.

      A bit wrong, as above, the point was about imposing rules by the minority not about discussing opinions or even potential changes. Those are two very different things. Second one could be perceived as a core principle of democracy while the first one is almost the opposite of it. I’m not quite sure how to explain it further if you can’t see the difference between the two.

      Enlightened societies normally seek to limit individual liberty only to the extent that is necessary to discourage individuals from seeking to limit the liberty of others.

      Which is the same what i stated so i see no conflict what so ever in that despite of your attempts to create one.

    • JusticeDemon

      You can’t grasp the point about laying down a rule that people may not lay down rules? OK, I won’t labour it. You don’t have to accept modus ponens as a law of inference, either.

      How do you feel about Robert Pirsig’s observation (on page 106 of Lila)?:

      “No minority has a right to block a majority from conducting the legal business of the organization. No majority has a right to prevent a minority from peacefully attempting to become a majority.”

      It occurs to me in my ignorance that an immigrant expressing disapproval of, say, common Finnish attitudes to alcohol use, the social isolation of old people, and immodesty in personal public appearance, and who refuses to adhere to such attitudes, belongs to a minority that is peacefully attempting to become a majority. The same goes for just about all members of non-Lutheran religious communities, and even for political groups like the PS.

      Most of the electorate did not vote for the PS, which makes it a minority by any reasonable definition. What gives it the right to tell the majority how it should arrange public policy, and why does this right not equally extend to any other minority?

    • ohdake

      How do you feel about Robert Pirsig’s observation (on page 106 of Lila)?:

      “No minority has a right to block a majority from conducting the legal business of the organization. No majority has a right to prevent a minority from peacefully attempting to become a majority.”

      It occurs to me in my ignorance that an immigrant expressing disapproval of, say, common Finnish attitudes to alcohol use, the social isolation of old people, and immodesty in personal public appearance, and who refuses to adhere to such attitudes, belongs to a minority that is peacefully attempting to become a majority. The same goes for just about all members of non-Lutheran religious communities, and even for political groups like the PS.

      Never read that work, nor any of the works by the author in question so it is rather difficult to say as i lack the context in which the statement was made. However on generic basis it seems to reflect what i believe. Important issue is however what is considered to be ‘peaceful’ method and what is not – no is saying that people should wholeheartedly agree with everything they see, but how they shouldn’t stray away from what society considers as peaceful when they show their disapproval.

      Most of the electorate did not vote for the PS, which makes it a minority by any reasonable definition. What gives it the right to tell the majority how it should arrange public policy, and why does this right not equally extend to any other minority?

      Here you seem to be making an assumption that majority of PS votes would have voted for the party because of certain opinions of selected PS candidates. Which is rather dubious given the PS also acts as generic protest movement against the stagnation of the existing political parties. Populism (like the recent pension cap) also works in their favor regardless of their stance towards racism or immigration.

      As to what right PS does to tell majority anything, none what so ever. However its members have freedom to express themselves as long as it does not infringe to the rights of some one else (which is something certain PS members have had difficulty of grasping).

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      but how they shouldn’t stray away from what society considers as peaceful when they show their disapproval.

      How is this anything but a slur on immigrants, Ohdake? Or do you refer to the riots in Sweden? I guess it is true that native citizens of Sweden, or other European countries have never rioted themselves or ‘strayed’ away from peaceful means of demonstration? Ugh…but wait!

    • JusticeDemon

      So following these concessions about what you really meant, what significant content remains in your assertion? You wrote this:

      Well, not just written laws but also they shouldn’t try to impose their own standards above those of the other people (i.e. not to go against perceived common law so to speak).

      But what, specifically, are you now saying that anyone should not do, beyond the legal constraints that apply equally to everyone? What does “trying to impose a standard” specifically mean in practice?

      It seems to me that your attempt at informal legislation is quite vacuous. It boils down to some vague desire for conformity to a social norm that is anyway continually shifting and indeterminate.

      Individuals communicate their values in their concrete behaviour. If they maintain daily contact with elderly relatives, avoid or abstain from alcohol and dress in a modest manner, then these behaviour patterns already imply a certain view of the good life. If they hold certain opinions concerning the human condition and our relationship with the unconditioned, then they will most probably wish to express those opinions as matters of ultimate concern, and they will seek to persuade others of the value of these views by argument or example. Everyone in society does this on some level, and some people (including politicians, religious proselytisers and everyone in business) put special effort into seeking to change the values and behaviour of others.

    • ohdake

      No study that is well executed is ‘besides the point’.

      It is besides the point if it is against the law. No study as such can justify that.

      What nonsense is this? Everyone tries to impose their own ‘standards’ over other people. I guess you are not married!!

      Imposing standards over other people is quite different from mutually agreeing to do something. Perhaps you ought to try that instead of attempting to bully people around?

      The point is that there is no obvious concensus on religious elements in public life in Finland, so someone who adopts a ‘different’ practice is not necessarily so far away from the mainstream, given the number of atheists or non-practicing religious people in today’s society.

      There is very of anything religious in Finland. According to studies over 60% (in 2010) of Finns are agnostics, atheists or non-believers – and since then their number has only increased. Dragging religion into anything in Finland is sure way to sideline yourself. If it were up to me i would ban KD from taking part to politics since no religion has any place in there.

      This is an unbelievably lazy reply. I am not in the habit of discussing with myself about what I really know. It is also customary in matters that are open to a great deal of vagueness or ambiguity to ask a speaker to clarify what they mean by their statements.

      Yet so was your comment to the point i had made. Not being able to adapt to the society is essentially the same as not being able to live with it peacefully. Immigrants (minority) can not expect their whims to be heard if the infringe on something that is considered by the majority as being a basic right.

      They are your words and ideas, that foreigners should ‘adapt their culture with what exists’, and it is incumbant on you to explain what you mean by this, as this is at the heart of your argument.

      Funny then how similar concept came also from the text JusticeDemon provided…

      You cannot see it achieving anything positive? I guess you don’t count the views of Muslim women as particularly important? And segregation is quite the norm in this society already.

      Segregation due to sex is quite a bit different from segregation due to religion. To my eyes the statement regarding segregation on religious grounds in _public_ facilities is even worse than openly ethnic segregation from mid 20th century USA. If done in private facilities i would still consider it weird and deranged but if some one wants to appear as weird and deranged it is their own business, not mine.

      Well, churches are by their nature segregated institutions catering for the beliefs of particular groups. By your thinking, churches are themselves somehow against the values of Finnish society, with your implied monocultural stance. I don’t think it’s a religious issue particularly, as I’m assuming that in a women-only bathing slot, all women are allowed regardless of religious belief.

      Churches, temples, prayer houses, tsasounas etc. etc. regardless of the denominating religion are quite a bit different from other public places (though not all of them are public). They specifically serve certain religious denomination, there is no similarity to the public bathing facilities.

      Once again you are ignoring the rights of those you disagree with. Your notion of integration is that everyone somehow agrees and there is no variation and no-one asking for any kind of specialised or preferential services.

      No, no one is required nor forced to agree. Point was that going aggressively (i.e. non-peacefully) against the prevailing society is not exactly acceptable. There are ways for (at least trying to) getting the society to change but interfering with it and intentionally creating strife in it is not one of those.

      If some one specially works against the society and refuse to accept how it works that rarely is anything that could be perceived as peaceful. Immigrants can also be intolerant to the surrounding society themselves and that is not something that can be explained as racism of the surrounding society.

      Next, why can’t you actually back up what you say for a change by giving an actual example of what appears to have informed your opinions. Or are you making this up as you go along?

      I already stated everything i wanted to comment on that matter. If that is not enough for you then that is your personal problem, not mine.

    • JusticeDemon

      They are your words and ideas, that foreigners should ‘adapt their culture with what exists’, and it is incumbant on you to explain what you mean by this, as this is at the heart of your argument.

      Funny then how similar concept came also from the text JusticeDemon provided…

      You will have to join the dots for us on that one. My understanding is that everyone in society influences everyone else to a greater or lesser degree, and that this influence may be subject only to such statutory constraints as are necessary to discourage horizontal coercion and to ensure that vertical coercion may be exercised only within proportionate boundaries that respect human rights.

      I most certainly have not advocated any general duty to conform. There is already too much social pressure on individuals to think and behave alike, without pretending that there should be any obligation to do so, or bowing to the whim of insecure control freaks who are incapable of tolerating diversity.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      It is besides the point if it is against the law. No study as such can justify that.

      Except that it isn’t against the law, is it Ohdake? As long as the animal is stunned within seconds of slaughter, the practice is legal in Finland, both for halal and kosher. Likewise, all laws are subject to review and that is where research is of course important to have an informed debate. Indeed, it was the recent research on animal suffering that prompted the move to tighten the laws.

      Imposing standards over other people is quite different from mutually agreeing to do something.

      We are clearly talking about different contexts and for some reason, you seem to want to ignore that obvious fact. You seem to skip from talking about legal frameworks to talking about culture and values. When I respond to the culture and values, you pretend I’m talking about the laws. When I talk about laws, you switch back to talking about values, because for most cultural diversity, laws do not regulate those differences. On top of that, you try to make fools of us for not being in the right domain that you happen to have chosen at that moment by way of trying to score cheap points in the debate. Ignorance is bliss, eh!

      But, in response to your comment, at the legal level, almost no legislation is passed with total consensus or without some long process of development and refinement. In other words, the values of particular individuals might be better reflected in the legislation than others. On the person and social level, people try to impose their will on others, mostly in friendly and innocuous ways. As you watch children grow and attempt to impose their own young and very selective will on the world, you see quite clearly that this is a fundamental urge in humans, to have their own way and impose their own desires/values. Asking immigrants to forego this kind of behaviour is frankly quite stupid!

      Dragging religion into anything in Finland is sure way to sideline yourself.

      Religion is not ‘dragged’ into this – it is intrinsic to the issue. In the same way that specialised meat manufacture seeks to find a way that accommodates as best as possible the requirements of animal welfare and the religious requirements for meat preparation, so other issues relating to religious people need to be discussed and where it is at all possible, society should be accommodating. Your approach appears to be ‘no concessions for the religous bods’, based purely on your own prejudices against religion. That is hardly the basis for arriving at a fair society, if you ask me.

      They specifically serve certain religious denomination, there is no similarity to the public bathing facilities.

      So who wrote the rule that society must NEVER accommodate religious people in public services? As far as I know, there is no rule. The issue is always where one person’s right to practice religion does not interfer with other people’s rights. In the case of gay marriage, a public official who exercises their ‘right’ to object morally to the marriage and refuse to perform it is violating the rights of the gay couple to have that ceremony performed. In that case, the religious rights do not trump the civil rights of the gay couple. Yet in this case of swimming baths, I hardly see how allotting a time for women-only bathing is even threatening to the rights of others. There is no foregone conclusion here that minorities must allows be accommodated, but one thing is clear, that minorities are indeed entitled to advocate for their own special interests in exactly the same way that many other groups do in society and also entitled to gain concessions likewise like other groups do. Can we at least agree on the principle of freedom?

      Point was that going aggressively (i.e. non-peacefully) against the prevailing society is not exactly acceptable.

      First, I object to you making the association between immigrants and aggression. I think that is a racist comment. You have given no indication as to why you bring ‘aggression’ into the discussion. Your own use of the word without any context is tantamount to yet another smear on immigrants. IF you want to talk about civil unrest, that is a separate discussion. As far as I know, there have been no riots in Finland or even elsewhere specifically to do with claiming rights to bath or halal meat or other issues that may be regarded as ‘cultural’, which was the focus of this discussion. If you want to broaden the debate to talk about employment issues, inequality issues, then yes, civil unrest is a factor, although one of many. But confusing the two issues only serves your agenda of looking down on immigrants and treating them as if they were ‘visiting barbarians’ that have to be kept in check. All very racist, if you ask me!

      There are ways for (at least trying to) getting the society to change but interfering with it and intentionally creating strife in it is not one of those.

      Look mate, either fess up or shut up. I will not tolerate you smearing immigrants endlessly on this site without making ANY reference to specifics. This is not a platform for you to smear immigrants at will.

      On the issue of ‘creating strife’, then clearly you need to specify what you mean by that. Do you mean that immigrants are not allowed to bring up issues that make Finns uncomfortable for whatever reason? Is Finnish political life so fragile that it cannot handle a very small group of people standing up for their rights and making ‘political noise’? We are not talking about breaking the law here, or do you wish to refer to specific illegal acts that have taken place in Finland while immigrants have been pursuing political or civil goals? In which case, bring them to the table or behave yourself and stop smearing immigrants!!!! You have been officially warned, Ohdake. This site is not a platform for racism.

      that rarely is anything that could be perceived as peaceful.

      Rot, rubbish, twaddle, piffle and bunk. Almost all of politics is strife of one kind or another, and by your ridiculous definition of social equinamity, would count as being somehow subversive and dangerous.

      Immigrants can also be intolerant to the surrounding society themselves

      Most individuals can be intolerant of the surrounding society. Finland has a vast army of researchers, politicians, decision-makers and members of Joe Public whose main mission in life is to be critical of that society in the hopes of somehow improving it. In that sense, they are ‘intolerant’ of the current situation and seek change. You seem to have this special notion when it comes to foreigners that if there is something that THEY don’t like or that doesn’t suit them, that this is such a massive faux pas or departure from the norms of Finnish society that it must be opposed. You are both blinding yourself to what is normal in Finnish society and treating immigrants as some kind of ‘special case’ in terms of what is quite normal behaviour. Both are signs of deeply entrenched racist attitudes and beliefs.

      I already stated everything i wanted to comment on that matter.

      You mean you made an accusation and couldn’t back it up? Nope, that’s not enough for me. That just makes you into a slanderer and nothing else. You bring nothing to this debate except hot air phrases and empty accusations geared to putting immigrants in a bad light. You, my friend, are an out and out racist parading yourself as a ‘concerned citizen’. People like you are intellectually lazy, dishonest, and downright devious. You don’t answer straight questions, you constantly shift the goal posts to try to make fools of your opponents, and you still expect to be taken seriously….

      Not going to happen!

    • ohdake

      How is this anything but a slur on immigrants, Ohdake?

      But what, specifically, are you now saying that anyone should not do, beyond the legal constraints that apply equally to everyone? What does “trying to impose a standard” specifically mean in practice?

      It was anything but – it was more of a slur on Finns. It was an acknowledgement that every society & culture are different. It was not intended in any manner to hint towards the riots in Sweden. Members of northern cultures and societies just tend to be quiet & taciturn & introverted people in public spaces, even more so with the Finns. There are some exceptions to this like drunken fools but you need to consider how seriously any one takes a drunken fool. And that recognition also works other way around, some one making loud noise in public (apart from rare speech stands) is rarely if ever taken seriously. By going beyond the limits you are already making yourself to appear like a village idiot regardless of your intent – which may be tolerated but never taken seriously.

      Which comes around to the matter of some one expressing their disapproval in manner which is considered peaceful in the surrounding society. The limits are different in different societies for determining which expressions are considered peaceful and which are not. And yes societies do change over time they are influenced by the different people living in them, but you can not force a change (i.e. your own standard) onto a society – i.e. act against what is considered peaceful in the society. You can work for a change within the society – i.e. adapt to the society.

    • Mark

      See my previous comment. This is your second warning. If you are going to constantly refer to immigrants as somehow unlawful or non-peaceful without refering to specific issues or instances, you will be banned from this site. I hope this is now clear!

    • ohdake

      Right, and of course because i clearly only had to be a clairvoyant enough to perceive what your post, what was posted essentially simultaneously to mine contained… How about getting real for once. For you anything that disagrees with you is racism, is almost a wonder that everything isn’t racism for you. If you can not accept that societies and cultures are different there is very little point to continue this discussion due to your stubbornness.

      As to specific points from your posts…

      As long as the animal is stunned within seconds of slaughter, the practice is legal in Finland, both for halal and kosher.

      Actually that would be illegal in Finland. Animal (with the exception of poultry) needs to be stunned SIMULTANEOUSLY or prior to the cutting of the veins. Doing it afterwards is already a violation of Animal Welfare Decree’s allowance for slaughter for religious grounds. Not to mention any ritual slaughter still needs to take place in slaughterhouse under direct supervision of a veterinary officer.

      Asking immigrants to forego this kind of behaviour is frankly quite stupid!

      I wasn’t saying that. But you need to take account that if immigrants act like children (like you presented in your example) that is exactly how seriously they will be taken. That is the effect of the society the live in. They need to adapt to the society in order to have any possibility ever to have a chance of changing it.

      Your approach appears to be ‘no concessions for the religous bods’, based purely on your own prejudices against religion. That is hardly the basis for arriving at a fair society, if you ask me.

      Mainly because mixing religion with society has created some of the worst excesses in human history – especially the three ‘religions of the book’ – i.e. the carbon copies of each other Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hell, even the Finnish ‘fascist party’ – IKL, was partly motivated on RELIGIOUS grounds. The less effect religion, any religion – Evangelist Lutheran church in which I am a member included, has in the society & politics the better. People are free to practice what ever religion they want to in Finland for all i care – as long as they do it in private.

      I think that is a racist comment.

      You seem to think that of every statement you disagree with so I’m not particularly surprised.

      What i referred to with aggression was the non-peaceful, as perceived by the surrounding society – not by the immigrant as perceptions in this matter DO vary, attempts to induce change.

      Look mate, either fess up or shut up.

      Right, because once again only those opinions which coincide with your opinions are acceptable?

      On the issue of ‘creating strife’, then clearly you need to specify what you mean by that. Do you mean that immigrants are not allowed to bring up issues that make Finns uncomfortable for whatever reason?

      Quite the contrary, they should and they should be encouraged to do so. However only by the means which are generally deemed acceptable by the society (i.e. are peaceful). Not by going against it.

      Rot, rubbish, twaddle, piffle and bunk. Almost all of politics is strife of one kind or another, and by your ridiculous definition of social equinamity, would count as being somehow subversive and dangerous.

      Of course politics is such, but it is a accepted ‘arena’ for that to take place. Which is quite detached from people these days.

      Both are signs of deeply entrenched racist attitudes and beliefs.

      Right, because only opinions which follow your ideas are non-racist…

      You don’t answer straight questions, you constantly shift the goal posts to try to make fools of your opponents, and you still expect to be taken seriously….

      And you expect that you would be taken seriously after you remark anything and everything that disagrees with you as racist or racism. Grow up Mark.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      Right, and of course because i clearly only had to be a clairvoyant enough to perceive what your post, what was posted essentially simultaneously to mine contained… How about getting real for once. For you anything that disagrees with you is racism, is almost a wonder that everything isn’t racism for you.

      Well, I’m sure you would like to think that, but once again you are being disengenous AND lazy. I have disagreed with you on many points, but ONLY on very specific points have I drawn a connection with racism:

      1) when you link immigrants to crime or aggression without any factual or substantive basis
      2) when you refer to the normal behaviours of immigrants as somehow ‘different’ and not fitting the host culture’s norms
      3) when you demand single-mindedly that immigrants give up basic rights and their right to cultural difference while insisting that the norms of the host culture are somehow ‘that what exists’ and MUST have precedance.

      If you can not accept that societies and cultures are different there is very little point to continue this discussion due to your stubbornness.

      Where have I said that I do not accept this? Indeed, is it not me that is pointing out to you in terms of the specifics when it is quite normal to have vast differences in values WITHIN cultures, let alone between cultures!!!

      Actually that would be illegal in Finland. Animal (with the exception of poultry) needs to be stunned SIMULTANEOUSLY or prior to the cutting of the veins

      Not what I’ve read. Please direct me to the legislation.

      But you need to take account that if immigrants act like children (like you presented in your example)

      I absolutely fucking knew you would do this. You would take the reference to children and twist the point, ignoring that prior to that I was also drawing reference to it in adults too. The point of mentioning children was to illustrate just how early and ingrained this desire is and how absolutely clearly visible it is in children. It was NOT to imply that somehow immigrants have free reign to behave like children. If you continue to manipulate my responses in this way, then this conversation will end very soon! Final warning. We do not need you on this site, Ohdake. You are here as a guest. If you cannot show even basic respect (and seeking to clearly misrepresent our points over and over is a form of disrespect), you will not be allowed in the discussion!

      They need to adapt to the society in order to have any possibility ever to have a chance of changing it.

      And you have STILL failed to give a single concrete example of what YOU mean by ‘adapt’.

      Mainly because mixing religion with society has created some of the worst excesses in human history

      And suppressing religion and religious freedoms has likewise created plenty of other equally brtual excesses, no?!

      People are free to practice what ever religion they want to in Finland for all i care – as long as they do it in private.

      I’m sure that North Koreans are told the same when it comes to their desires for freedom – just as long as they practice it in private, it’s okay by the communist leadership. The very idea that a person is free to believe something but not free to see the values engendered in those beliefs somehow influence or reflected in outward ‘public’ society is a form of social oppression. You, the non-religious person, are seeking to oppress religious persons, complete with your justifications that they are ‘brutal’ people, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of religious peole are productive, law abiding, moral, decent, hard-working, family orientated, community-orientated folks who take a particular interest in advancing social issues and public morality! No, let’s ignore all that and talk about the extremists and all the evils of history. In fact, why do we even bother to have the Germans in the EU, just look at what they did in the past!!! How far you going to take it, Ohdake? Are you going to ask Finland to withdraw on moral grounds given the brutal blood-letting that took place here shortly after independence?

      What i referred to with aggression was the non-peaceful, as perceived by the surrounding society – not by the immigrant as perceptions in this matter DO vary, attempts to induce change.

      Wow. I’m sure people are so much wiser about what you actually mean now. Give an example. Please. Pretty please!

      Quite the contrary, they should and they should be encouraged to do so. However only by the means which are generally deemed acceptable by the society (i.e. are peaceful). Not by going against it.

      I see. And once again you make the connection with violence and don’t actually justify it. I remember sitting in a roomful of immigrants talking to politicians in the last election cycle and the feeling of despair, anger and frustration that whenever immigration was discussed, there were those that JUST HAD TO bring up the issue of crime, and abiding by the law, as if they people in that room were just ‘criminals in waiting’. The immigrants there were digusted at the implied insult embedded in those comments and attitudes.

      Of course politics is such, but it is a accepted ‘arena’ for that to take place. Which is quite detached from people these days.

      Clearly your notion of ‘politics’ is somewhat narrow, as if it was ONLY the media-reported public slanging matches and political gossip and wranglings. Actually, the business of politics is altogether something else – it is committee work, reporting, analysis, fact-gathering, deliberation, consultation, presentation, implementation, evaluation and re-evaluation. It is a cycle and process involving politicians, the public, experts, organisations, industry, universities, research institutes, labour unions etc.., which eventually filters down to the grass roots level of actual policy and practices of countless different occupational groups. ‘Politics’ is the action and function of almost the ‘whole’ of society!! Indeed recognising it as such goes a long way to understanding our role as ‘political citizens’ in a democracy, able to appreciate and practice our freedoms. Detached you say? I think I know who I think is a bit detached!!!!!

      Right, because only opinions which follow your ideas are non-racist…

      That’s always a good response to a serious allegation backed up by specific ideas and evidence. You are making very clear assumptions in this debate, which I am pointing out specifically and drawing the connection with racism. In response, you try to personalise this as some kind of vague endeavour on my part to call everyone I disagree with a racist at every opportunity. Of course, it’s much easier for you to do that than to actually properly defend the charges against you!!!!

      At some point you might choose to actually take part in this debate. Do you not see the connection between treating immigrants as somehow ‘different’ and assuming the hegemony of the ‘host’ nation as clear examples of how ‘racism’ takes hold and then parades itself as nationalism? I’ll tell you what – I certainly do.

      Grow up Mark.

      Gosh, you do sound petulant and whiny!

    • Mark

      You know, Ohdake, I’m sure that in normal life (not here on the internet), you are a sensible enough person, with some useful knowledge and skills, plenty of life experience, good advice, a friend to many, a support to your family etc. But you would not be the first person to shoot from the hip on immigration issues, thinking that you are speaking from good gut instincts, only to be revealed as speaking from gut prejudices that do not hold up to any kind of real scrutiny.

      This is why you struggle to come up with concrete examples, why the discussion on your part remains vague and barely relates to the actual lives and issues for immigrants, and why you end up having to resort to weak logically fallcious arguments such as ad hominems.

      I’m not saying you are not or would not be able to debate this topic, ever, but you seriously need to rethink your approach. Indeed, perhaps you should take some time to actually think through your opinions. I doubt you’ll change your gut skepticism and your position of superiority in regard to immigrants, but perhaps you will realise the futility of just making negative slurs on immigrants.

      I’m sure you don’t believe for a second that you are a racist, but then few racists actually do. I am a racist, in a process of reforming. I accept that living in the West pretty much guarantees breeding this inbuilt sense of superiority and a staggering and very selective blindness to the actual issues of racism. Much like you shift from talking about rules to talking about culture whenever your seat starts to get too warm in either place. Much like you seek to individualise problems that actually relate to social functions and freedoms. These tricks of logical distraction are quite effective in ‘hiding’ the real questions and issues under a mountain of associations, generalisations and backtrackings.

      For me, it would just be useful if you attempted to actually answer the questions you are asked, and not prevaracate about it or bemoan the fact that you were asked a question. Or do you think that you write such perfect prose at all times that there cannot possibly be room for misunderstanding?

    • ohdake

      Since it appears to be too much to demand for you to search for the information on yourself:
      http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1996/en19960396.pdf

      And because it seems that there is no reason to believe you would actually read that so lets make it easier and copy-paste the relevant content here:

      Chapter 12 – Section 45(1)
      Notwithstanding the provisions set down in section 42(1) above concerning the stunning of an animal before bleeding, if required by religious reasons bleeding may be started SIMULTANEOUSLY with stunning…

      Chapter 12 – Section 47(1)
      An animal must be stunned by a suitable stunning instrument referred to in section 42(3) SIMULTANEOUSLY with the cutting of the jugular veins.

      Given your lack of will or interest to actually find that talks volumes of who exactly has been lazy in this discussion.

      ——————

      1) when you link immigrants to crime or aggression without any factual or substantive basis
      2) when you refer to the normal behaviours of immigrants as somehow ‘different’ and not fitting the host culture’s norms
      3) when you demand single-mindedly that immigrants give up basic rights and their right to cultural difference while insisting that the norms of the host culture are somehow ‘that what exists’ and MUST have precedance.

      1) Which I didn’t. You construed that all by yourself. Which is telling of your prejudice.
      2) If it differs then is not different – or do you refuse accept that cultures and the related norms are different?
      3) Which i didn’t. That is again your own deduction. What i stated was that they should adapt to, not that they should adopt the existing culture and its norms.

      Where have I said that I do not accept this?

      Given that your own question just few lines above this made this exact connection your comment is nothing short hilarious.

      I absolutely fucking knew you would do this.

      And that is a surprise to you after you even started this whole discussion with the very same method – “se joka leikkiin ryhtyy, se leikin kestäköön” – or “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Really, if you can’t take such comments then perhaps it might be better for you to avoid making such yourself, just a hint.

      And you have STILL failed to give a single concrete example of what YOU mean by ‘adapt’.

      I have explained that several times by now. Just because you stubbornly refuse to accept it is no means my failure of expressing what i mean by ‘adapt’. That failure is solely in your end. Your demands of concrete examples of generic concepts are nothing but silly foolishness.

      And suppressing religion and religious freedoms has likewise created plenty of other equally brtual excesses, no?!

      Suppressing of religions has generally been done in the name of other religions…

      The very idea that a person is free to believe something but not free to see the values engendered in those beliefs somehow influence or reflected in outward ‘public’ society is a form of social oppression.

      Except once again that is not was being discussed. It started from your invention of bathing turns for Muslim women, which you once again turned into female only bathing turns – which had nothing what so ever to do with anything that was being discussed. Point was that forcing something in public places on religious grounds doesn’t belong to this time and era. They can cherish the values of religion (as long as they don’t contrary to existing laws), there is nothing wrong with that. But imposing something on religious grounds is something else. Hence ‘free to practice in private’ where they do not interfere with other peoples freedoms.

      Wow. I’m sure people are so much wiser about what you actually mean now. Give an example. Please. Pretty please!

      If you can not understand what was being discussed then i really can not help you.

      I see. And once again you make the connection with violence and don’t actually justify it.

      I never made connection with violence. You did. You yourself decided that my comments referred to violence. That is yet again no one else’s failure than yours, something from which there seems to be a time you actually learned from. Your repeated habit of jumping into conclusions which have nothing to do with the statement to which they allegedly refer to is getting rather tiresome.

      Clearly your notion of ‘politics’ is somewhat narrow, as if it was ONLY the media-reported public slanging matches and political gossip and wranglings.

      No. That is media depicting politics. Sad fact is that ‘political elite’ seems to be getting more and more detached from the public in Finland. Otherwise protest movements like PS would never had such a fertile ground to grow upon. If you fail to understand that then i really do feel sorry for you.

      Of course, it’s much easier for you to do that than to actually properly defend the charges against you!!!!

      What charges would those be? Your wild allegations that are based on nothing but on your baseless deductions? Right, like some one would take that seriously?

      Gosh, you do sound petulant and whiny!

      Given that i only followed your example what does tell about you? As said, grow up.

      I’m sure you don’t believe for a second that you are a racist, but then few racists actually do. I am a racist, in a process of reforming.

      That seems rather doubtful, if anything you seem to be still a racist but you act against mainstream public instead of immigrants. That is racism too (per definition) – it doesn’t need to be aimed against immigrants. Ironically your determination that people in west have selective blindness and are in fact racist is racism in itself.

      Or do you think that you write such perfect prose at all times that there cannot possibly be room for misunderstanding?

      Sure there is room for misunderstanding, there always is. However it is a general assumption that an adult person is actually capable of independent thought instead of being lead by some one else so i leave that part for you – just like i would do for any other adult.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      Given your lack of will or interest to actually find that talks volumes of who exactly has been lazy in this discussion.

      Why would a person who lacks will or interest actually ask you to present your source? And asking and being happy to be corrected are hardly examples of intellectual laziness – the opposite in fact.

      However, a person who was intellectually lazy would certainly try to manipulate such a request to try to score cheap points.

      I was relying on Widipedia pages on ritual slaughter as a source, though I accept that it is not always accurate, which is why I asked you for your source.

      1) Which I didn’t. You construed that all by yourself. Which is telling of your prejudice.
      2) If it differs then is not different – or do you refuse accept that cultures and the related norms are different?
      3) Which i didn’t. That is again your own deduction. What i stated was that they should adapt to, not that they should adopt the existing culture and its norms.

      1) Yes you did. Or why else did you see fit to mention peaceful and legal means of demonstration and aggression several times in regard to immigrant’s rights, without giving any specifics and without explaining why you even thought it necessary to make the connection.
      2) You sentence is confused.
      3) Actually I quoted your words exactly several times – you stated that they should adapt ‘with’ the existing culture and norms. I asked you several times to explain what you meant and you refused each time.

      And that is a surprise to you after you even started this whole discussion with the very same method

      I am not interested in using those kinds of arguments because they are so pointless. Care to point out where you think I have used them? What you did was a blatant manipulation to misrepresent my argument. I, on the other hand, do strive towards some intellectual integrity, for all that you might not think so.

      And that is a surprise to you after you even started this whole discussion with the very same method

      Clearly you are failing to grasp the nuances in this discussion. Discussions about the rights of immigrants typically position the immigrant demand or opinions as ‘different’, to the extent of being a major threat to the values of the host culture. My point is that the vast majority of those claims fit right in with the normal variation in Finnish culture if only you care to cast your eye over Finnish culture. These are not problems therefore of ‘multiculturalism’, but discussions of ‘culturalism’, i.e. that people within a culture will often push for quite different values and also for their own ‘special’ interests. The cultural difference I am defending is not therefore something i see as ‘outside’ the host culture, even though you chose to interpret it as that, and therefore to see some kind of contradiction. In fact, your decision to see it as ‘outside’ actually only reconfirms my original point even more strongly! What can I say – hilarious!

      I have explained that several times by now. Just because you stubbornly refuse to accept it is no means my failure of expressing what i mean by ‘adapt’. That failure is solely in your end. Your demands of concrete examples of generic concepts are nothing but silly foolishness.

      You haven’t explained anything. And what have I refused to accept? Show me the text where I ‘reject’ your explanation of what you mean! Concrete examples are of course necessary – otherwise you are living in the land of hot air and political rhetoric, a rhetoric of hatred, no less, that constantly seeks to patronise and defame immigrants. NO wonder you don’t want to give concrete examples of what you mean.

      Suppressing of religions has generally been done in the name of other religions…

      Historically perhaps, but in today’s age, it is being done more and more in the name of political aethiesm, a trend started by Communism, and to some extent supported by more militant forms of humanism.

      Except once again that is not was being discussed.

      So what I choose to bring into the argument is ‘not being discussed’. Exactly at what point are you going to allow me to enter this discussion then? Nevertheless, the point remains extremely relevant to the prior discussion. You attack the right of immigrants to seek to have elements of their own culture incorporated, expressed or significantly visible in the host culture. Is that a correct interpretation of your view?

      I never made connection with violence.

      I guess you think repeatedly making the call for immigrants to act ‘peacefully’ and without ‘aggression’ to have nothing to do with making a connection with violence. Do you really seek to insult the intelligence of our readers so?

      Sad fact is that ‘political elite’ seems to be getting more and more detached from the public in Finland

      This idea is itself political rhetoric. Some parties specifically encourage this notion of being disconnected from the public as being a sure and simple way of trying to undermine a politician or party that fails to have the common touch. As populist parties very typically and very deliberately try to foster this ‘common touch’, this clearly benefits them, though of course any politician can attempt to increase their ‘popular appeal’ in this way. The business of political decision-making is however quite far away from the lives of many people, unless those people also perform extensive decision-making in their work that requires similar skills. Even then, politics, because of its accountability to public institutions, is actually quite unique as a civic or occupational activity. Nevertheless, clearly the need to connect politics with ordinary life and to point out the importance of politics in everyday life are clearly important and require perhaps a different kind of skill, one of communication. As it is, it’s a bit sad that ‘politics’ as a public discourse tends to play it safe, preferring to have rather vague and ideological discussions around fairly fixed topics rather than get into the real detail of political decision-making. This only serves to make accusations like yours, however inaccurate they are, to actually stick.

      Given that i only followed your example what does tell about you? As said, grow up

      And there I was thinking that my analysis of your laziness, your failure to explain your arguments, failure to properly incorporate the views of immigrants and the general shallowness of your approach had somehow hit a nerve. 🙂

      That seems rather doubtful, if anything you seem to be still a racist but you act against mainstream public instead of immigrants.

      Oh, yes. That is very likely isn’t it. I a priviliged working-class white person who is racist against other working-class white persons of privilege. Sure. The one’s challenging racism are the biggest racists. I’ve never heard that one before.

      it doesn’t need to be aimed against immigrants. Ironically your determination that people in west have selective blindness and are in fact racist is racism in itself.

      Blind to what exactly? That all people of all ethnicities are capable or practice some form of racism? Hardly. I accept that as a harsh fact. Indeed, only today I was reading about how Malaysian Bumiputera majority are defending racist practices in higher education that work against ethnic Chinese and Indians in Malaysia. Exactly the same kind of blindness and arguments defending racism that you see in Europe.

      Sure there is room for misunderstanding, there always is. However it is a general assumption that an adult person is actually capable of independent thought instead of being lead by some one else so i leave that part for you – just like i would do for any other adult.

      So, having weighed up your response, you haven’t really contributed anything further to the debate, either in the way of actually explaining yourself as requested, or steering away from the ad hominems. Therefore, my conclusions remain unchanged.

      I will not entertain this tit-for-tat endlessly. At some point, I will just ignore you.

    • ohdake

      I was relying on Widipedia pages on ritual slaughter as a source, though I accept that it is not always accurate, which is why I asked you for your source.

      If wikipedia is your primary source then it is no wonder why it is so difficult to have civilized discussion with you.

      1) Yes you did. Or why else did you see fit to mention peaceful and legal means of demonstration and aggression several times in regard to immigrant’s rights, without giving any specifics and without explaining why you even thought it necessary to make the connection.

      Here you once again do that very same deduction. Without any basis to support it.

      2) You sentence is confused.

      It is a rather simple question really. Are the cultures (mainstream & immigrant) different? If they are different then why wouldn’t their norms be different as well? If the norms are different then it should be no wonder that they will not fit seamlessly into the society.

      3) Actually I quoted your words exactly several times – you stated that they should adapt ‘with’ the existing culture and norms. I asked you several times to explain what you meant and you refused each time.

      Because it has been discussed already previously – you have only confused yourself with your unfounded deductions. If you are incapable of understanding that then please let me know.

      I am not interesting in using those kinds of arguments because they are so pointless. Care to point out where you think I have used them? What you did was a blatant manipulation to misrepresent my argument. I, on the other hand, do strive towards some intellectual integrity, for all that might not think so.

      Yet despite of your ‘holier than thou’ attitude you used exactly the same kind of manipulation. Seems it’s high time for you to step down from the pedestal and take a really long look into the mirror.

      Clearly you are failing to grasp the nuances in this discussion.

      Yet the fact remains, you blame for using the very discussion methods you yourself have applied.

      You haven’t explained anything. And what have I refused to accept? Show me the text where I ‘reject’ your explanation of what you mean!

      Given that your own just preceding statements do exactly that – i.e. refuse to accept what has been told to you – your comments are rather stupid.

      Historically perhaps, but in today’s age, it is being done more and more in the name of political aethiesm, a trend started by Communism, and to some extent supported by more militant forms of humanism.

      Yet the fact remains that the religions themselves have largely been responsible for the repressions of other religions.

      So what I choose to bring into the argument is ‘not being discussed’. Exactly at what point are you going to allow me to enter this discussion then? Nevertheless, the point remains extremely relevant to the prior discussion. You attack the right of immigrants to seek to have elements of their own culture incorporated, expressed or significantly visible in the host culture. Is that a correct interpretation of your view?

      No, it is not. Which is something that should be clear to you had you actually read the preceding posts. It might help you if you even acted like you had read the earlier postings.

      I guess you think repeatedly making the call for immigrants to act ‘peacefully’ and without ‘aggression’ to have nothing to do with making a connection with violence. Do you really seek to insult the intelligence of our readers so?

      There is quite a bit of difference between not acting peacefully or acting without aggression and actual violence. All that is solely your own personal deduction which openly shows your prejudicial attitude in this matter.

      Something which might be worth a while for you to read: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression && http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/aggression – and heaven forbid, your deduction was far from the sole possible definition for the terms…

      This idea is itself political rhetoric.

      Never said it wouldn’t have been – that doesn’t make it any less true or false. And yes, populist parties do use it, and it does find support from the people because it matches how they – at least some of the people – perceive the situation.

      And there I was thinking that my analysis of your laziness, your failure to explain your arguments, failure to properly incorporate the views of immigrants and the general shallowness of your approach had somehow hit a nerve. 🙂

      Had any of your immature and inane quips hit the nerve you would have seen it – there would have been no need to ‘think’ about that.

      Blind to what exactly?

      Blind to your own racist attitudes – something your own previous posting already proved.

      So, having weighed up your response, you haven’t really contributed anything further to the debate, either in the way of actually explaining yourself as requested, or steering away from the ad hominems. Therefore, my conclusions remain unchanged.

      Given that you clearly made up your mind prior to even starting the discussion it is not really a surprise.

      I will not entertain this tit-for-tat endlessly. At some point, I will just ignore you.

      And why should any one care if you ignore them?

  4. Brave

    Ohdake,
    Regardless of your cultural background you need to live with the mainstream population and in their culture.

    What is your culture?
    sauna, brown bread, praising illegal law
    What then?
    And why me as a foreigner should adapt me with Ur culture( i don’t know whats Ur culture, i have not seen culture in Finland)

    I don’t like to change me for first, and i wont accept ur control no never
    Secondly i am sure about all i have, so am not proud of your flag, language and Ur favor color
    Even
    I never seen respect in your culture

    • ohdake

      I didn’t say you need to adopt it but instead that you need to adapt to the Finnish culture and society. Otherwise you are intentionally or not causing issues in the society.

      Every person who avoids talking (i.e. leaves you alone) to you in the street is already showing you respect and giving you privacy – Finnish form of showing it just happens to be different than what you seem to have expected.

  5. Brave

    OH ohdake,
    Am i causing issues in the society if i keep being myself?
    How?
    If your answer is yes, may i ask how? and what kind of issues? feel free and put your examples.

    NO
    Finnish people( %99 ) seldom talk to me, exactly seldom,, they prefer talk to themselves even when i speak their mother language and am between them.
    So what kind of adapt when there is no way?
    However am not interest anymore,i wont try again on a way that is not way but wall.

  6. Joonas

    @Brave – Don’t get this wrong way, but may I ask: why are you still in Finland? I know that sounds bad and I don’t mean that as a “Go back to your homeland, foreigner!” statement or anything like that. It just seems you are very unhappy in this country (and have been unhappy for a long time) and do not like how things are handled in here. What keeps you in here?

    Even I’m sometimes planning moving abroad, but I have also several reasons why I want to stay in here and I’m quite satisfied how things are handled (but who knows, I still might move some day). If you have no family or kids in Finland, I don’t see many reasons why not try living in some other country and if you think they can’t offer you any better life, you can always come back. At least I wouldn’t want to live my whole life in misery.

    • Brave

      Yes @ Joonas,
      No i dont get this wrong u and every body r free on MT and then its my turn so you don’t get my next blog wrong because its exactly about this matter(also this is not strange for me i used to hear this words Joonas please don’t worry)
      I was writing it exactly yesterday and it will come on MT soon.
      Me too,i have also several reasons but I’m not satisfied at all about %90 of my life in here.
      Oh more than misery a NIGHTMARE.

  7. Klay_immigrant

    Isn’t it ironic how foreigners who clearly hate Finland and Finns in general choose to travel here, stay, apply for citizenship and accept Finnish tax payers money in order to survive. Oh the hypocrisy! I guess they have never heard the saying ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you’.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      So unimaginative, Klay. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. You want immigrants to be active and take part in society but then label them as “haters” if they dare to raise their voices. The last time we had that type of a atmosphere was in the McCarthy era in the US, post-1933 Germany, Stalin-ruled Soviet Union and a list of other suspect leaders and regimes.

      Moreover, in this part of the world, people listen to other people’s opinions. Just because a person is an immigrant or a naturalized Finn doesn’t mean he has to patronize.

      Are you sure you don’t need to take a course on how our democracy works? Maybe you’re trying too hard to fit in, which forces you to lose sight of the big picture.

    • JusticeDemon

      Why are you afraid to tell us how you are getting on in your job and in your own immigration to Finland, Klay?

      My guess is you simply couldn’t cut it in Finland and now you are too proud to admit that you failed.

    • Klay_immigrant

      Mr. JD to answer your persistent questioning about my adaptation in Finland I can tell you I’m doing perfectly fine and enjoying my life here. In my opinion certainly a better country than England, my previous residence.

      I’ve had to educate or re-educate myself on certain intricacies on culture or lifestyle as not everything is identical but that was expected and didn’t come as a surprise. I was willing to put the work in and reap the rewards. It’s an ongoing process that will take many more years as one learns more and more.

      The easy option would be to sit on my ass and expect everything to change for me especially as I already know English so could get by with that alone and complain when things don’t go my way. As a consequence I would miss so much on what Finland has to offer.

      I’m not special, anyone can have the same mentality and apply themselves to assimilate but the will and motivation is lacking in many and that’s sad as that reflects more about the individual than Finland itself.

    • JusticeDemon

      Heh…

      Jopa verkossa kävelee muunneltu totuus tosi lähellä maata.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –It’s an ongoing process that will take many more years as one learns more and more.

      It’s a lifelong process. Be ready for the long haul.

      One important matter in our adaption process. In Finland, you don’t assimilate. Why? Because you’ll never be a white Finn no matter how long you try.

      Keep your identity. It’s important for your self-confidence. It will bring a sense of balance and peace in your life.

      Stay clear of one size fits all anti-immigration rhetoric.

    • Brave

      Flattering Klay???
      Do you flatter me or yourself or Finland?
      Or do you worship Finland and Finns?
      Maybe Finland is your temple?

      Oh what a hypocrisy and what you mean? Do you mean u hate yours and ur country and u fall in love with Finland again and again?
      Okay fall, fall with your head
      AND
      Isn’t it ironic how you Klay and your family, your children accept Finnish tax payers money in order to survive???? oh and plus foreigners tax payers?
      and So for sure
      You have never heard the saying ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you’ and don’t bite Dana on MT, don’t bite MT.

      You with your toothless mouth, don’t bark around me.

  8. Mark

    Isn’t it ironic how foreigners who clearly hate Finland and Finns in general choose to travel here, stay, apply for citizenship and accept Finnish tax payers money in order to survive. Oh the hypocrisy! I guess they have never heard the saying ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you’.

    Your depiction of Dana is both inaccurate and defamatory. Here is the order of events.

    Sent here by the UN – learns Finnish – accepts low paid ‘training’ job to improve circumstances – attempts to integrate – faces discrimination and hostility – cut off from family with reunification laws too strict to reunite her with her elderly parents – both parents die – difficulties with social welfare offices end up with police eviction and criminal charges – attempts to talk about her situation on the internet result in vitriolic attacks.

    I’d say that would try the patience of a saint!

  9. Brave

    Klay,
    I’m not special, anyone can have the same mentality and apply themselves to assimilate but the will and motivation is lacking in many and that’s sad as that reflects more about the individual than Finland itself.
    ….
    Who told that you are not special? U r a very special immigrant,a very local immigrant, a PS immigrant you are.
    Now go and take your candy from PS.
    And whats your motivation on MT? Think about if you are able.
    IF you are immigrant how you don’t have anything to speak about? Any thing about an immigrant life in Finalnd?

    Jealous Klay
    Is that a woman name?

Leave a Reply