Alppilan koulun tapaus: Tämänkin perussuomalainen katsomus pilasi

by , under Susannah

Susannah

Suomessa käydään nyt Alppilan koulun tapauksen takia suurta keskustelua koulujen työrauhasta ja opettajien kannoista omasta työstään. Suurta adressia lähti vetämään perussuomalainen Sami Rautavuori Vantaalta.

http://www.adressit.com/pelastakaa_opettaja_antti_korhonen

Tänään la 13.4. kuitenkin, adressin facebookryhmässä, https://www.facebook.com/koulukurikuntoon käytiin asiatonta, törkeää keskustelua keskustelua Alppilan “pojan”, siis oppilaan perheen VAHVISTAMATTOMISTA taustoista, ja sillä alettiin tehdä perussuomalaista politiikkaa. Päivityksen oli julkaissut ryhmän toinen ylläpitäjä, Sami Rautavuori (ps).

Monet opettajat ja viisaat vanhemmat kävivät paheksumassa ryhmän adminin Sami Rautavuoren (ps) linjaa, opettajan rooli on suojata lasta, samoin monen vanhemman mielestä oppilaan tausta ei kuulu mitenkään asiaan. Rautavuori poisti sen päivityksen, mutta ei kadu julkaisuaan kovinkaan paljon, kuten kommentti osoittaa

Näin Sami Rautavuori, tärkeän keskustelun “perussuomalaistanut” pilaaja.

“Avoin keskustelu jatkukoot. Koska pahoinvoivan lapsen ja hänen vanhempiensa vetäminen mukaan tähän keskusteluun herätti melkoista pahoinvointia ryhmän keskuudessa, katsoin parhaaksi poistaa koko julkaisun, jonka siis itse melkoisen ärsyyntyneenä Ylen A-Stream -lähetystä ja toimittajien asennetta silmälläpitäen julkaisin. Luulen, että juttu tulee jokatapauksessa julkisuuteen… valitettavasti. Aroistakin asioista joudutaan pakostakin keskustelemaan, ja jakamaan monenlaisia mielipiteitä. Hyvää lauantain jatkoa kaikille! Sami”

Pitää siis valittaen todeta, että perussuomalainen pilasi hyvän ja arvokkaan keskustelun suomalaisen koulun tilasta ja opettajien työtä säätelevien tutkimusten ja laintulkintojen kautta keskustelua. Häviäjänä tässä on suuri, fiksu enemmistö.

Susannahin ikävä velvollisuus on nyt kertoa, että jos tällaisesta hankkeesta tulee kansalaisaloite, kehotan monia ihmisiä harkitsemaan kaksi kertaa, ennenkuin tukee perussuomalaista kiusaamispolitiikkaa. Kuka tässä voittaa mitään? Opettajat, oppilaat, vanhemmat, se poika? Ei, perussuomalainen asenne “sananvapaudesta”.

Susannah toivoo kuitenkin, että asiallinen keskustelu saisi jatkua, ja tutkimukset tapauksesta valmistuvat aikanaan.

  1. Farang

    Millä oikeudella ja perusteella käsittelet yksittäisen ihmisen tekemisiä perussuomalaisen tekemisenä? Onko mielestäsi yleistäminen ok silloin kun se kohdistuu perussuomalaisiin, mutta väärin silloin kun se kohdistuu esim. muslimeihin tai somaleihin?

    Haluaisitko, että yksittäisen somalin tehdessä rikoksen, kaikki aiheeseen liittyvä keskustelu kulminoituisi siihen, että “taas on somali tehnyt rikoksen” vai pitäisikö kuitenkin ymmärtää että yksittäinen henkilö on vain henkilö?

    Perussuomalaisuudella ei ollut tämän asian kanssa mitään tekemistä, silti sinä yrität käyttää tätäkin tapausta keppihevosena perussuomalaisia vastaa.

    Teet siis itse täsmälleen samaa, mistä kuitenkin muut tuomitset.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      Julkaisin tämä kommentin Susannahn puolesta:

      WordPress administrator area access disabled temporarily due to widespread brute force attacks.”

      Voitko sinä laittamaan Susannahin terveiset?

      Jos sen julkistuksen jälkeen: Koulukuri kuntoon , valta takaisin opettajille ryhmän ylläpitäjä:

      “Koulukuri kuntoon, valta takaisin opettajille Loistavaa! Pitää varmaan toistekin räväyttää jotain yhtä repäisevää? Tärkeintähän täällä on keskustelu, mielipiteiden vaihto ja uudet hyvät ideat, jotka täällä voidaan muokata toimivaksi kokonaisuudeksi koulukurista ja kasvatuksesta! Jos lipeäminen ryhmän pääajatuksesta joskus lipeää hieman sivuun, voidaan ehkä löytää se avain näihinkin pulmiin joihin ratkaisua etsitään.”

      Ja tämän ryhmän perussuomalaistuminen kerralla, siis monta Rautavuorta selkään taputtelevaa perussuomalaista ja perussuomalaisten hengenheimolaista. on siellä:
      https://www.facebook.com/koulukurikuntoon?fref=ts

      Tommi Liukkonen protestoi:

      ” Lisättäköön vielä se, että minua oikeasti vitutti se, että hyvään ja mielestäni erittäin oikeaan sanomaan oli lähdetty pelleilemään politikoinnilla mainitsemalla ko. tapauksen ongelmanuoren äidin puolue sekä hänen miehensä tausta ja menneisyys. Niitä asioita varten on omat fooruminsa, enkä ainakaan minä halua, että ne sotketaan tähän opettaja vs oppilas -tapaukseen.”

      ja jatkaa…”Käsittääkseni tämän ryhmän otsikko on “Koulukuri kuntoon, valta takaisin opettajille” eikä sillä ole mitään tekemistä sen kanssa, minkä puolueen edustaja häirikön äiti on, minkä maalainen hänen isänsä on tai onko hän vankilassa. Vaikka sittemmin poistetussa kirjoituksessa käsiteltiin sinänsä todellisia asioita (joskin vahvistamattomia), oli ainakin minun mielestäni todella mautonta sotkea tähän opettajan valta-asiaan politiikkaa (puolue- ja maahanmuutto) yleensäkään. Jos ryhmän olisi otsikoitu esim. “Onlgemanuorten perheiden vanhemmat” tms, olisi asia täysin eri.”

      Kuuroille korville, vaikka Rautavuori poisti sen päivityksen monen opettajan ja fiksun vanhemman pyynnöstä, se päivitys lähti leviämään esim. Uuden Suomen keskusteluihin, ja se on aiheuttanut tilanteen, jossa esim. sen pojan äidillä olisi täysi oikeus viedä kirjoituksia tutkintapyyntöinä eteenpäin. Ja kaikille muille keskustelualueille. Myös A-streamia on vinkattu ottamaan oppilaan tausta esiin.

      Ei Susannahilla ole mitään periaatteessa perussuomalaisiakaan vastaan. Susannah uskoi, että siitäkin huolimatta, vaikka tämä perussuomalainen adressia lähti kokoamaan, keskustelu voisi olla asiallista. Nyt tuo adressin facebookryhmä näyttää asioiden erittäin surullisen, perussuomalaisen tilan.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      Susannah pyytää tutustumaan linkkaamansa ryhmän kirjoituksiin, ja tehdä henkilöistä nettihakuja. Farang voisi ystävällisesti tajuta, että ryhmän toiminta on monen kasvatusalan ammattilaisen etiikan vastaista, samoin monen vastuullisen vanhemman, täysin nuorten, oppilaiden oikeuksia vastaan.

    • Farang

      Nämä kasvatusalan ammattilaiset ovat suurimmaksi osaksi korruptoituneita kukkahattuja, joten heidän mielipiteillään ei ole yhtään mitään merkitystä.

      Tämän opettajan potkuissakin kyse oli korruptiosta. Potkut annettiin täysin muista syistä kuin opettajan omien tekojen vuoksi.

      Ja edelleenkään noilla ryhmässä esitetyillä kommenteilla ei ole mitään tekemistä Perussuomalaisten kanssa, joten on törkeää ja epärehellistä yrittää väittää noiden asiattomien kommenttien olevan millään tapaa Perussuomalaisten kanta.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      Susannah vastaa:

      “Perussuomalaiseksi tavaksi määrittelen mm. maahanmuuttoasioiden sotkemisen kaikkiin sellaisiin asioihin, joihin maahanmuutto ei kuulu. Tällainen loanheitto haittaa opettajien ammatillista keskustelua, nuorten oikeusia, hallintotieteen keskustelua, juridista keskustelua, vanhemmilla on pelot, että kuka tahansa saa näköjään penkoa minkä perheen tahansa arkaluonteisia asioita, he ovat kuitenkin hyvässä yhteistyössä kasvatusalan ammattilaisten kanssa (joiden etiikka pitäisi olla oppilaan oikeuksien suojelu siinä missä työrauhan valvominenkin). Jos asia johonkin kuuluu, mahdollisesti viralliseen selvittelyyn, ei jokamiehen räävintäoikeudeksi.

      Jokamiehen räävintäoikeudeksi määrittelen perussuomalaisen sananvapauden ilman vastuuta.

      Pitää muistaa, että kyseessä ovat VAHVISTAMATTOMAT tiedot, joita tullaan mitä suurimmalla todennäköisyydellä käyttämään armottoman koulukiusaamisen välineenä. Tätä en tule koskaan hyväksymään.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      Hei Farang, tarkoitan perusuomalaisten ajattelutapa.

      Oikeastaan jokainen näiden perheen taustatietojen levittelijä syyllistyy todennäköisesti tietojen laadusta riippuen Rikoslain 24 luvun 8 §:n mukaiseen yksityiselämää loukkaavan tiedon levittämiseen. (Sakari Timonen, lakimies kirjoittaa) Tässä lienee tarpeeksi perusteluja ja kaikille oppilaan tietoja levittäneille tahoille miettimistä. Ei tältä pohjalta ajeta kenenkään oikeuksiat.

      t. Susannah

    • Farang

      Ette te voi määritellä tuota millään tavalla perussuomalaisten ajattelutavaksi. Perussuomalaisista löytyy monenlaista eri ajattelutapaa noudattavia ihmisiä, ihan samalla tavalla kuin muistakin puolueista.

      On todella törkeää että yrität käyttää tätä tapausta keppihevosena perussuomalaisia vastaan.

      Ensin itse syytät perussuomalaisia siitä, että he käyttävät tätä tapausta oman agendansa ajamiseen, mutta samalla teet täysin samaa ihan itsekin. Millainen ihminen oikein olet?

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –Ensin itse syytät perussuomalaisia siitä, että he käyttävät tätä tapausta oman agendansa ajamiseen, mutta samalla teet täysin samaa ihan itsekin. Millainen ihminen oikein olet?

      Susannah on hyvä ihminen. Lue sen kirjoitus. Löydät vastaukset sinun kysymyksiin tekstistä.

    • Farang

      I read the whole post. Two disturbing issues:

      1) Susannah constantly refers to the author mentioning everytime that he is a member of PS. Even if in this case PS has nothing to do with this.

      2) Even in the end Susannah suggests that people should not put their name in the petition, because it is suggested by a member of PS.

      Susannah is only using this incidence as her own personal weapon against PS.

      Please think Enrique. This is exactly same think as if someone would write about some crime which was committed a somali and in every sentence the writer would mention that it was a somali who committed the crime and in the end of thw writing he would say that never approve anything suggested by a somali.

      I switched to English as it seemed that you don’t understand what I’m saying in Finnish.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Two disturbing issues

      Yes, we know that you are disturbed! 😀

      1) Susannah constantly refers to the author mentioning everytime that he is a member of PS. Even if in this case PS has nothing to do with this.

      Why do you think PS have nothing to do with this? If a PS politician is trying to make political capital from racially profiling children who have some kind of learning difficulties, you don’t think that is a political issue or an issue that should be commented on?

      For someone who says they are in favour of free speech, you seem to protest greatly whenever that free speech involves political criticism of PS politicians. Why is that?

      Susannah is only using this incidence as her own personal weapon against PS.

      Weapon is a strong word. Are you saying that PS were injured by this criticism of one of their representatives? Are you saying that when it comes to PS, no-one is allowed to say ‘don’t vote for them’, because that is always somehow ‘injuring’ to PS? Are you trying to say it’s unfair that a politician’s political comments are used to criticise the political party he belongs to? Because I don’t think there are many people who would agree with you.

      I think you are brainwashed by PS into thinking that ANY kind of criticism is somehow some kind of vendetta against the party. In fact, your use of the word ‘weapon’ all but confirms this attitude.

      We have had this debate already twice Farang, and still you have your fingers in your ears going ‘blah, blah, blah’. Time to listen and try to understand this time!

      A political party is not an ethnicity.
      Political parties can be criticised.
      Political parties are a collective.
      The approach and ideas of this collective can be criticised.
      For this, it is useful to use the party’s name.
      An elected official is a representative of the party.
      The party takes responsibility for what their representatives say.
      If the party disagrees strongly, they sack or sanction the representative.
      Otherwise, the representative can be taken to speak on behalf of their party.

      Farang, why did you mention Somali and crime in the same sentence? Your racism surfacing again, me thinks!

  2. Farang

    Mark

    The approach and ideas of this collective can be criticised.
    For this, it is useful to use the party’s name.

    Yes. But this was NOT an idea of this collective. This was an idea of an individual person.

    Farang, why did you mention Somali and crime in the same sentence? Your racism surfacing again, me thinks!

    Just an example to make people understand. You people don’t seem to understand certain issues unless they are presented against some of your favour groups.

    Atleast I am consistent. You are not. You approve X if it is in favour of your favourite group, but you condemn exactly the same X if it is against your favourite group.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Yes. But this was NOT an idea of this collective. This was an idea of an individual person.

      So, you chose to ignore the fact that he represents his political party in the public sphere? Or are you saying that all party politicians can say whatever they want and the party itself can never be held to account because it was all done by ‘individuals’?

      Sorry, but that is a recipe for totalitarianism. A group of individuals operate as a ‘state’ body (i.e. the PS party), but all abusive actions by members of the state body are always dismissed as the actions of individuals, thus leaving the state always free of blame. This freedom from blame is effectively a total loss of accountability and an abdication of responsibility.

      Farang, when a political REPRESENTATIVE (please look up the meaning of this word, both in the dictionary and as used in the Finnish constitution) adopts a legal position as an actor in social policy making, then the words and opinions of that actor are held to a different standard to that of an ordinary person. The reason is that this person, as part of the state body or as a party member has the possibility to shape policy. Therefore, it is quite normal if a politician makes a statement that the public will then hold the party that that person REPRESENTS to account for that REPRESENTATIVES words. Now if the party find the comments made do not align with party policy, they should make the public aware AND they should demand that the REPRESENTATIVE make it clear that he speaks without party approval.

      This is normal stuff, Farang, so I’m a bit confused as to why it all is so confusing for you!

      You people don’t seem to understand certain issues unless they are presented against some of your favour groups.

      Except that you created a false analogy that was clearly racist. There is no analogy between polical parties and ethnicities. The only thing they have in common is that they are ‘groups’ of people. But that is not enough to assume that criticism of or opposition to a political party is the same thing as criticism of and opposition to an ethnicity.

      In fact, the increase in the ‘ethnicising of politics’ in exactly this way that Susannah describes is one of the absolutely nailed-on features of an increasingly racist and fascist-oriented political arena.

      At least I am consistent. You approve X if it is in favour of your favourite group, but you condemn exactly the same X if it is against your favourite group.

      You are consistently racist? Wow, and you want a medal for that?

      So what is X, Farang?

      In answer to your question:

      1) I agree that people should not be criticised merely for belonging to an ethnic group.

      2) I agree that people can and should be criticised merely for belonging to a racist political party.

      Any party that puts immigration as its no.1 agenda item is a racist party in my book. It is ethnicising politics, stigmatising immigrants and feeding hate speech. The PS and all Far Right groups say it is merely ‘telling the truth’. But their ‘truth’ is that some people deserve less dignity, are culturally of less value and deserve to be targeted merely for belonging to a particular ethnicity or religion. That is not a TRUTH that I can agree with.

    • Farang

      Mark

      So, you chose to ignore the fact that he represents his political party in the public sphere?

      I don’t have to ignore anything. He doesn’t represent his political party in that matter.

      Things that a political party supports are decided in the party. Each member of a political party still remain to be humans like rest of us and they have also private life.

      This incident has NOTHING to do with PS, why can’t you get that into your head?

      Any party that puts immigration as its no.1 agenda item is a racist party in my book.

      Well, as you publicly admit that you don’t know what racism is, that pretty much nullifies all you arguments against racism.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Well, as you publicly admit that you don’t know what racism is, that pretty much nullifies all you arguments against racism.

      I guess you never read my first post on Migrant Tales.

      He doesn’t represent his political party in that matter.

      A politician always represents their party. Why? Because a political party sets standards for behaviour. If a politician commits a crime or is seen to be corrupt or to express views that are clearly vile, then those standards have been compromised and a member is thrown out of the party.

      At least, that’s how it works in most parties except the Far Right fascists, who are basically happy to have ethnic agitators, fascists, neo-Nazis, convicted rapists, convicted racists and other hate mongerers happily ensconsed in the heart of the party!

      This incident has NOTHING to do with PS, why can’t you get that into your head?

      Because it is one of the most bullshit statements that you have come out with:

      – a politician making a political statement (even starting a petition), trying to bring ethnicity into an educational issue in a derogatory and clearly racist way, effectively politicising the issue, and you expect me to believe that this has no relevance to the political party to which he belongs!!!!

      Are you fucking dim witted, or what?

  3. Farang

    Mark

    – a politician making a political statement (even starting a petition), trying to bring ethnicity into an educational issue in a derogatory and clearly racist way, effectively politicising the issue, and you expect me to believe that this has no relevance to the political party to which he belongs!!!!

    You refuse to understand that this person would have done exactly the same thing even if he was a member of Kokoomus, Vihreät, SDP or even if he wasn’t a member of any party.

    His actions have nothing to do with the party he is member of. Are you seriously suggesting that if he was a member of Kokoomus, you would now be stating here that this was an action of Kokoomus?

    I know you understand this but you just refuse to admit it, because this is your dishonest way to use any possible means to defame PS.

    • Mark

      Farang

      I know you understand this but you just refuse to admit it, because this is your dishonest way to use any possible means to defame PS.

      Is that the only way you can convince yourself that my points are not worth considering?

      You refuse to understand that this person would have done exactly the same thing even if he was a member of Kokoomus, Vihreät, SDP or even if he wasn’t a member of any party.

      Fine. Next time one of those politicians from those parties tries to ‘ethnicise’ educational issues, I will gladly condemn them and their party if their party refuses to censure them! I really couldn’t give a shit about which party this guy belongs to, but surprise surprise, it’s once again PS. And once again, you are here defending racists and racism!

      His actions have nothing to do with the party he is member of.

      His actions were political. Starting a public petition is a political act. He happens to also be a politician. And yet you still expect me to divorce his political actions from the political party to which he belongs? Do you really think people are that fucking gullible!? Or is it just you that is the gullible one, Farang?

      Unbelievable!

      And what was that nonsense you wrote about me ‘publicly admiting I don’t know what racism is’? I see you didn’t come back on that blog post I wrote! If you had any integrity, you would have said something about that.

  4. Farang

    Mark

    His actions were political. Starting a public petition is a political act.

    Petition was about getting peace and safety in schools. Do you see something wrong in that?

    The other comments about the kid involved in the situation was not political.

    You clearly have problems in keeping things separated. That’s propably the reason why you are so blind to corruption aswell.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      The Alppilan School case is closed, according to a story on HS:

      http://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/Syy+potkuille+Alppilan+opettaja+menetti+malttinsa/a1366076273777

      I consider the whole matter quite suspect, especially by the fired teacher who, as mark points out, started to play politics. He was asking and got trouble. He lost his job for good as well. I doubt that anyone will hire him after such a spectacle.

      Another issue that we brought up on Migrant Tales thanks to Susannah was how different politicians like the PS tried to take advantage of this situation. Spreading personal information about the child’s family was something disgraceful as well. Poor kid.

    • Mark

      Farang

      The other comments about the kid involved in the situation was not political.

      This is just one whopper after another, Farang. The petition was about a debate about school safety and having consistent rules of how to deal with unruly students – that is a legitimate discussion. But that does not justify heavy handedness by teachers, especially in a situation where other students were not at risk, which is the only situation where a teacher can intervene with physically restraining measures. But the second he brings the ethnicity of the student into the equation, Sami both politicised and introduced enthnicity into that politics…both actions that are or should be completely unacceptable. As an elected politician, his party have to either sack him or take responsibility for his actions.

      But we all know that is EXACTLY the agenda of PS anyway, to ethnicise politics all across the board! If just racism in all its ugliness! Don’t be gullible, Farang. Do you not know that the Far Right are among the most manipulative and exploitative political movements ever devised?

      That’s the problem when dolts like you fall asleep in history class!!!

    • Farang

      Enrique

      I consider the whole matter quite suspect, especially by the fired teacher who, as mark points out, started to play politics.

      Now I’m really starting to wonder if you even read the messages here…

      How did the TEACHER play politics?

    • Mark

      Farang

      How did the TEACHER play politics?

      I accept your point on this – it’s unclear how ‘political’ the teacher is. However, as the teacher is now bitterly complaining of having little chance to find teaching work again—although how the entire educational establishment is in the wrong for putting pupil safety first, I really don’t know—there appears to be a clear opening into politics via the PS party. We shall have to wait and see if his name appears on the next local election lists.

    • Farang

      Mark

      But that does not justify heavy handedness by teachers, especially in a situation where other students were not at risk, which is the only situation where a teacher can intervene with physically restraining measures.

      Read the law Mark. Teacher can physically intervene if student is causing disturbance, even if there is no violence or threat of violence involved.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Read the law Mark. Teacher can physically intervene if student is causing disturbance, even if there is no violence or threat of violence involved.

      I was quoting the HS story on the Deputy Mayor of Helsinki’s decision to uphold the sacking. I’m assuming she/they know what their talking about. Care to point me to the relevant legislation and I’ll have a closer look at it.

      Opettajan tehtävä on huolehtia kaikissa tilanteissa siitä, että jokainen tuntee koulun turvalliseksi oppimisympäristöksi. Jos opettaja joutuu poistamaan oppilaan luokasta tai muusta tilasta, hänen on huolehdittava oppilaan turvallisuudesta tilanteen jälkeen.

      The issue is that a teacher is allowed to remove a student, but is not allowed to use heavy handed tactics or put the students at risk, including the student causing a disturbance.

    • Farang

      Here it is:

      36 b § (13.6.2003/477)

      Häiritsevän ja turvallisuutta vaarantavan oppilaan poistaminen

      Rehtorilla ja opettajalla on oikeus poistaa luokkahuoneesta tai muusta opetustilasta taikka koulun tilaisuudesta oppilas, joka ei noudata 36 §:n 2 momentissa tarkoitettua poistumismääräystä. Rehtorilla ja opettajalla on myös oikeus poistaa koulun alueelta oppilas, joka ei poistu saatuaan tiedon 36 §:n 3 momentissa tarkoitetusta opetuksen epäämisestä.

      Jos poistettava oppilas koettaa vastarintaa tekemällä välttää poistamisen, rehtorilla ja opettajalla on oikeus käyttää sellaisia oppilaan poistamiseksi välttämättömiä voimakeinoja, joita voidaan pitää puolustettavina oppilaan ikä ja tilanteen uhkaavuus tai vastarinnan vakavuus sekä tilanteen kokonaisarviointi huomioon ottaen.

      Rehtori ja opettaja voivat 1 ja 2 momentissa tarkoitetuissa tilanteissa toimia yhdessä tai kumpikin erikseen. Oppilaan poistamisessa ei saa käyttää voimankäyttövälineitä. Voimakeinojen käyttöön turvautuneen opettajan tai rehtorin tulee antaa kirjallinen selvitys tapahtuneesta opetuksen järjestäjälle.

      Teacher was not putting the student at risk, that is clearly visible in the video which is published.

      Could you also comment about the corruption? As we already know, the teacher had complained about the principal earlier, thus giving principal motivation for revenge.

      Also the political connections between the principal and mother of the kid have been revealed.

      Therefore you don’t have to be Einstein to figure out that the teacher was fired on personal reasons, and the incident was only used as an excuse.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Thanks for the link.

      Jos poistettava oppilas koettaa vastarintaa tekemällä välttää poistamisen, rehtorilla ja opettajalla on oikeus käyttää sellaisia oppilaan poistamiseksi välttämättömiä voimakeinoja, joita voidaan pitää puolustettavina oppilaan ikä ja tilanteen uhkaavuus tai vastarinnan vakavuus sekä tilanteen kokonaisarviointi huomioon ottaen.

      The emphasis is on necessary forceful methods. That leaves the door open to the use of ‘disproportionate force’.

      Nevetheless, the issue for me is not the discussion about the use of force, which is a legitimate and not necessarily easy discussion. The issue is that Sami Rautavuori has politicised it and introduced an ‘ethnic’ component, which coming from an anti-immigration party is quite despicable, as it takes advantage of the student involved.

      On the issue of ‘corrruption’, I think that you probably use this work incorrectly in English. When it refers to one teacher’s ability to perform their duties as expected, it is refered to as a ‘competency’ issue, not a ‘corruption’ issue.

      As to the head teacher’s competency, I cannot say. What was the complaint made against the principle? From what I understand, a new principle recently came in and finalised the disciplinary procedure, so I’m assuming that this new principle is less open to accusations about their competency on the issue.

      The reasoning seems perfectly understandable. The responsibilty of the teachers is at all times to make the environment as safe as possible. Escalating a situation through the use of force or forceable removal must be seen to be justified and unavoidable. As was mentioned, it seems that force was used very quickly in the situation, whereas the normal situation is to attempt to talk about the situation with the pupil.

      What are the connections between the principle and the student’s mother? I didnt’ read about them.

    • Farang

      Enrique

      More incriminating evidence:
      http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/201304160092225_uu.shtml
      Like many debates on this blog, it is your word against others.
      My only regret is that a social ill like prejudice and intolerance cannot be dealt with in such an effective fashion. Cross the line and your fired.

      I think you are totally out of this world. You seriously call something which iltalehti prints an EVIDENCE? 😀

      That “evidence” of yours is only a one-sided story told by Opetusvirasto, the same group which were part of firing the teacher. Friends with the principal, enough said.

      They repeat this lie “tarttui rinnuksista” even if it’s clear that teacher was pushing the kid from the back,

    • Mark

      Farang

      That “evidence” of yours is only a one-sided story told by Opetusvirasto, the same group which were part of firing the teacher. Friends with the principal, enough said.

      Clearly you are not being rational. If you can dismiss evidence simply on some spurious notion about the parties involved being ‘friends’, with no evidence, then you are sadly in the last phases of self-delusion.

      There can be teachers present but it can also be said that Antti did not ask for their help. There is no contradiction there.

      If a teacher did this to my kids, no matter the disagreement, I would be asking for him to be sacked! It was the right decision. Such an aggressive man should not be around children. Period!

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –I think you are totally out of this world. You seriously call something which iltalehti prints an EVIDENCE?

      I’ll refer you back to the original HS story on the matter, which is backed by Iltalehti.

      The issue, I believe, is the following: Some Finns, which include the fired teacher, the PS and other conservative sectors of our society, wanted to make a political issue of what happened. This backfired and now they got their fingers burned.

    • Farang

      Mark

      Nevetheless, the issue for me is not the discussion about the use of force, which is a legitimate and not necessarily easy discussion. The issue is that Sami Rautavuori has politicised it and introduced an ‘ethnic’ component, which coming from an anti-immigration party is quite despicable, as it takes advantage of the student involved.

      I totally agree with you. But I don’t agree with the interpretation that this would be coming from PS instead of just from an individual person.

      On the issue of ‘corruption’, I think that you probably use this work incorrectly in English. When it refers to one teacher’s ability to perform their duties as expected, it is refered to as a ‘competency’ issue, not a ‘corruption’ issue.

      No, I don’t mean competence. I mean corruption. In case where people in these high positions misuse their power to help their friends in their personal missions, it is corruption.

      As was mentioned, it seems that force was used very quickly in the situation, whereas the normal situation is to attempt to talk about the situation with the pupil.

      It was not used quickly. The video which is published only shows the last moments of the situation. The actual situation was much longer.

      And the statements from Opetusvirasto, which Enrique was referring to above, are quite interesting. They even lie with straight faces that this teacher didn’t ask help from other teacher before using force. But from the video you can clearly see that the other teacher is also present right next to the teacher and the pupil. Therefore it’s clear that opetusvirasto have been too busy to create a statement that they haven’t had anytime to check if their lies can be backed up or not 🙂

      What are the connections between the principle and the student’s mother? I didnt’ read about them.

      The principle was in the head role of getting the school participating in this multicultural environment program. And the student’s mother was heading the organization which is financing this program.

    • Mark

      Farang

      The principle was in the head role of getting the school participating in this multicultural environment program. And the student’s mother was heading the organization which is financing this program.

      So what are you saying, that they knew each other? The Principle also knew and worked with the teacher involved: Do you automatically assume corruption in that relationship too? What was the financing organisation, by the way? Are you suggesting financial irregularities?

      You didn’t tell me what the complaint was about the Principle made by Antti Korhonen. A complaint about what?

    • Farang

      Mark

      So what are you saying, that they knew each other? The Principle also new and worked with the teacher involved: Do you automatically assume corruption in that relationship too? What was the financing organisation, by the way? Are you suggesting financial irregularities?
      You didn’t tell me what the complaint was about the Principle made by Antti Korhonen. A complaint about what?

      Not only they knew each other. They had business relationship, eg. both person were in position where they could make decision on behalf of each other. If the pupil in the incident would have been any other kid, the principal wouldn’t have taken the measures she did now.

      The complaint was about principal not doing her duties. She hadn’t taken care of substitute teacher while Korhonen was on sick leave. That resulted in the childern left alone in the class with no teacher, as Korhonen was on sick leave.

      Also the principal hadn’t arranged proper induction for the teacher when he started in that school.

    • Mark

      Farang

      They had business relationship

      Ugh, no…one is a school principle and the other heading a funding organisation. You still haven’t said what this organisation was, by the way. That is hardly a ‘business relationship’. It is better described as an intersectorcal cooperation between education and the third sector. As budgeting is part of all organisational activities, that hardly implies financial benefit to either of these individuals, which is what is implied when you say ‘business relationship’.

      If the pupil in the incident would have been any other kid, the principal wouldn’t have taken the measures she did now.

      The incident was described by the Helsinki deputy mayor as extremely rare. The disciplinary decision was upheld. It hardly bares muster that you would call this purely a matter of cronyism.

      The complaint was about principal not doing her duties. She hadn’t taken care of substitute teacher while Korhonen was on sick leave. That resulted in the childern left alone in the class with no teacher, as Korhonen was on sick leave.

      Any more details about this? Was it a miscommunication? Did it last for an hour or longer? What is the normal outcome if there is a misunderstanding or memory lapse in these situations? Why was the complaint made if there was a lapse, these things happen?

      At the end of the day, the teacher has grabbed a student with such force that they have ripped their clothing and pushed them down the stairs in a manner that was clearly dangerous. I think that everything else you are putting forward is periphery and should not have affected the outcome and appears not to have affected the outcome.

      Also the principal hadn’t arranged proper induction for the teacher when he started in that school.

      I think you’ll find this is quite common.

    • Farang

      Mark

      There can be teachers present but it can also be said that Antti did not ask for their help. There is no contradiction there.

      Video clearly shows that the other teacher is involved and taking part in trying to get the kid leave. So she is clearly helping him. Do you seriously suggest that if someone is already helping him, he should still specifically ask for help?

      If a teacher did this to my kids, no matter the disagreement, I would be asking for him to be sacked! It was the right decision. Such an aggressive man should not be around children. Period!

      And that is the reason why people like you are ruining this world.

      If that would happen to my kid, I would have a discussion with my kid and explain to him that he needs to behave.

      People like you take no responsibility as a parent how your kids behave. You let your kids to whatever they like, no matter what harm they cause to others.

    • Mark

      Farang

      And that is the reason why people like you are ruining this world.

      Expecting your child to be safe in school is ruining this world? lololol.

      Discussing with your child is only one part of the issue. If the teacher has been heavy handed in dealing with them, that is another issue.

      People like you take no responsibility as a parent how your kids behave.

      Are you on drugs today, Mr Farang? So now you’ve resorted to insulting me and imputing how I treat my kids. 😀

      You let your kids to whatever they like, no matter what harm they cause to others

      The issue under discussion is not the child’s behaviour. It is how the teachers are supposed to respond. The child’s behaviour is a separate issue. I’m happy to debate it, but really, you should keep the two things separate. The provocation of the child does not justify heavy handedness.

      Video clearly shows that the other teacher is involved and taking part in trying to get the kid leave.

      Involved by standing there, witnessing? Or involved in pushing or dragging the child?

  5. Farang

    Mark

    Ugh, no…one is a school principle and the other heading a funding organisation. You still haven’t said what this organisation was, by the way. That is hardly a ‘business relationship’. It is better described as an intersectorcal cooperation between education and the third sector. As budgeting is part of all organisational activities, that hardly implies financial benefit to either of these individuals, which is what is implied when you say ‘business relationship’.

    Lions Club Finland

    So, according to you there can’t be corruption by politicians, because they are not in a business relationship 😀

    Even if it’s not an official business relationship in paper, the business relationship still exists.

    If person A is in a position to make decisions that affects the business of person B’s company, then there exists a “business relationship” and that can be abused , which is called corruption.

    • Mark

      Farang

      So, according to you there can’t be corruption by politicians, because they are not in a business relationship

      Well, that’s twisting my words, as usual. The phrase you seem to be grasping for is cronyism, where friends do favours for friends via their professional relationships. Describing their relationship as a business relationship is false. Funding is not ‘business’, it is funding. Business is a commercial enterprise. Neither of these are commercial enterprises. I’m just trying to get you to use more accurate English, but hey, I know you hate learning things from me.

      In summary, we are not talking about companies.

      So, the corruption you are insinuating relates to decisions that affect the ‘business’ of the parties involved. Tell me now these decisions have been invfluenced, Farang? Or are you just throwing dirt and hoping some of it sticks? Scumbag that you are.

  6. Farang

    Mark

    At the end of the day, the teacher has grabbed a student with such force that they have ripped their clothing and pushed them down the stairs in a manner that was clearly dangerous.

    Where do you read these lies?

    1) Teacher did not grab anything. He pushed the student. Evidence is in the video. No clothes were ripped. Did you read it from somewhere or just made it up yourself?

    2) There wasn’t any stairs going down, the stairway behind the door only goes up. Therefore it is impossible to push anyone down the stairs.

    It looks like you only read the one-sided lies compiled by this group of friends and somehow convice yourself that these are facts. What makes this interesting is that these women make up these lies even if they are all very easy to be proven as lies. Both of the lies you quoted were proven to be lies by the video and the fact that there are no stairs going down.

    • Mark

      Farang

      1) Teacher did not grab anything. He pushed the student. Evidence is in the video. No clothes were ripped. Did you read it from somewhere or just made it up yourself?

      I do not make stuff up, Farang, but yes, I did read it. The ripping of the clothes is supposed to have happened before the video, if I understand correctly. It is mentioned in the Iltalehti article that Enrique linked to. That doesn’t make it proof but I’m assuming these are not contested facts.

      2) There wasn’t any stairs going down, the stairway behind the door only goes up. Therefore it is impossible to push anyone down the stairs.

      Apologies, I should have said up. I have not seen the video, so again, I’m going on a reading of events. Can you link to the video. Like I said, I have not been particularly interested in the events themselves, but the reporting on ethnicity. But you have been going into more detail with various false accusations, and that has meant I have read around the topic more.

      It looks like you only read the one-sided lies compiled by this group of friends

      This is not a factual statement, Farang. This is your opinion, and clearly a biased one. For example, one professional who happens to agree with the Principle is dismissed as ‘a friend’, including Helsinki’s Deputy Mayor. That is a ridiculous position to argue. Please deal with the facts and accusing people of cronyism as a means to attack the character of the people only because they see it differently to you.

      What makes this interesting is that these women make up these lies even if they are all very easy to be proven as lies. Both of the lies you quoted were proven to be lies by the video and the fact that there are no stairs going down.

      They are not lies. The first was a misunderstanding of the Finnish by me, where ‘onto’ the stairs I interpreted to be down. But up is just as problematic, as tripping upstairs can result in a very nasty head injury and death in some cases. The issue is not any different whether it’s up or down, Farang.

      The other ‘lie’ appears to be merely facts that you yourself have not come across. Calling them therefore a lie is really quite provocative. Chances are that if you carry on this vein, your posts will be deemed as trolling, ONCE AGAIN. So, perhaps you should follow your own advice and stick to facts.

    • Farang

      Mark

      I do not make stuff up, Farang, but yes, I did read it. The ripping of the clothes is supposed to have happened before the video, if I understand correctly. It is mentioned in the Iltalehti article that Enrique linked to. That doesn’t make it proof but I’m assuming these are not contested facts.

      So, you have mistranslated. In this context the finnish word “repiä” is grabbing, not ripping. There was no physical contact at all before the actual last seconds of the situation, where teacher pushed the student.

      Here is the video: http://aijaa.com/YXcCFK

      The first was a misunderstanding of the Finnish by me, where ‘onto’ the stairs I interpreted to be down. But up is just as problematic, as tripping upstairs can result in a very nasty head injury and death in some cases. The issue is not any different whether it’s up or down, Farang.

      Was it up or down, in either case the student was not pushed to stairs. Student was only pushed out of the door. It was the principal who said that the student was pushed TOWARDS the stairs, which is natural because the stairs are in the same direction as the door.

      But there hasn’t been no mention about the distance, how far from the stairs they actually were. Only fact is that the stairs are in that direction, but the student wasn’t pushed TO the stairs. Only TOWARDS the stairs.

    • Mark

      Farang

      So, you have mistranslated. In this context the finnish word “repiä” is grabbing, not ripping. There was no physical contact at all before the actual last seconds of the situation, where teacher pushed the student.

      Okay, fair enough. Repi implies grabbing. How do you know from the context, by the way, because I thought that repiä meant in most situations ‘to rip’?

      But either way, grabbing the student like that still appears over aggressive. I guess for a fascist militant like you, it’s all okay?

      Was it up or down, in either case the student was not pushed to stairs. Student was only pushed out of the door. It was the principal who said that the student was pushed TOWARDS the stairs, which is natural because the stairs are in the same direction as the door.

      I’m assuming there is other witness testimony too, not just the Principle’s. You can see that the stairs are only a meter or so away from the door, so if the person has been pushed hard through the doorway as appears to happened in the video, then they will have probably fallen onto the stairs. I cannot say this has happened, but I think it’s a huge stretch to claim this ‘cannot have happened’. It looks to have been a likely outcome.

    • Mark

      Farang

      But there hasn’t been no mention about the distance, how far from the stairs they actually were. Only fact is that the stairs are in that direction, but the student wasn’t pushed TO the stairs. Only TOWARDS the stairs.

      Looking at the video again, it is very clear that the stairs are just a meter inside the hallway. Look at the floor. The teacher’s body is clearly seen moving all the way through the doorway with momentum, in such a way that it seems impossible that the student has not been forced onto the stairs.

      He’s not exactly small, this teacher, is he!?

      It really doesn’t look good.

    • Mark

      Well, I watched the video and I really cannot see very much from it at all, it is very poor quality. I suppose the eye-witness accounts of those present were much more important in deciding how much force was used and whether it was excessive.

      It does look like it was quite a shove that the teacher gave. The teacher appears to be very authoritarian in merely demanding the student to leave, rather than engaging in de-escalating the conflict. When the student doesn’t comply, he seems to lose his rag and gets very physical.

      That’s what I see from the video.

  7. Farang

    Mark

    Okay, fair enough. Repi implies grabbing. How do you know from the context, by the way, because I thought that repiä meant in most situations ‘to rip’?

    You need to look at the word after the verb. Here’s example:

    1) “Repi takin” = Ripped the jacket
    2) “Repi takista” = Grabbed/pulled from jacket

    But, as Finnish is quite complicated language, the meaning would change if you add something after the example 2. Like this:

    3) “Repi takista palasen” = Ripped a piece out of the jacket

    🙂

  8. Farang

    Mark

    But either way, grabbing the student like that still appears over aggressive. I guess for a fascist militant like you, it’s all okay?

    It’s still not proven that he even grapped the student. Teacher said he pushed the student and also from the video you can’t see any grabbing.

    • Mark

      I agree that with just video evidence and that only from a short period, we cannot conclude very much. Indeed, I’m not really aiming to prove anything. But then again, I’m not the one trying to drag the Principle’s reputation through the mud. The video evidence does not look good for the teacher, either in the manner he was talking to the student and the use of force. That’s my opinion.

    • Farang

      There is a summary available about the principle’s connections but that summary is written with so bad taste that I don’t like to spread it around. In that summary they are going through the earlier events of that student and his family and those should be kept private.

      If you like, I can post the link, but I really don’t like the way they are writing that.

    • Mark

      Okay. I understand that this is sensitive. Where is this summary coming from? And what is the relevance of earlier events in regard to this one, without going into details about those events? Again, what is the evidence for this?

    • Farang

      Well, the earlier events have actually nothing to do with this incident, but the writer has included them as a proof that the student’s mother is not competent in working in child protection.

      Besides that the writes has just investigated all the connections between the organisations that both of these women (principal and student’s mother) are working in and what are their mutual connections.

      I really feel sorry for the student and I agree that he should be left in peace.

      In this situation, even if it was proven that the teacher crossed the line, the normal procedure would be to give a warning, considering there has never been any incidents with this teacher. Firing him is really extreme punishment, and that is based only on the personal vendetta of that principal. And that is wrong, that is misusing of power.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Well, the earlier events have actually nothing to do with this incident, but the writer has included them as a proof that the student’s mother is not competent in working in child protection.

      And the motive is what? An ad hominem attack to somehow make the student look bad for standing up for their rights?

      Besides that the writes has just investigated all the connections between the organisations that both of these women (principal and student’s mother) are working in and what are their mutual connections.

      And has there been any evidence of wrong-doing?

      I really feel sorry for the student and I agree that he should be left in peace.

      Well, while this might be a genuine sentiment, your indulgence in the various conspiracy theories on the ‘corruption’ of the system probably don’t help.

      Firing him is really extreme punishment, and that is based only on the personal vendetta of that principal. And that is wrong, that is misusing of power.

      I would be very surprised if a physical assault on a student would result in only a warning. Are you sure that this is the normal course of action? Or are you repeating what Sami wrote about this?

  9. Farang

    Mark

    It does look like it was quite a shove that the teacher gave. The teacher appears to be very authoritarian in merely demanding the student to leave, rather than engaging in de-escalating the conflict. When the student doesn’t comply, he seems to lose his rag and gets very physical.
    That’s what I see from the video.

    That’s the problem. The video only shows last moments while the actual situation lasted for minutes. Therefore we can’t see the actions that took place before that.

    Based on the tetimonies the student was shouting at teacher “fat pig” etc and still the teacher tried to talk peacefully the student to get out. It was only the final solution to use force, because other means were already been tried.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Based on the tetimonies the student was shouting at teacher “fat pig” etc and still the teacher tried to talk peacefully the student to get out. It was only the final solution to use force, because other means were already been tried.

      And how do we know he was called a ‘fat pig’? And why was he called names? Kids do not normally try to confront teachers unless they feel provoked. She doesn’t look to be taking a particularly aggressive stance in this video, whereas I would say that he actually is very clearly, with his arms on his hips like that and his body position.

      But I’m not going to go on an endless round of speculation and cross-speculation.

      The issue here is how you back up your claims that the Principle is ‘corrupt’ just because she has professional contacts with the girl’s mother. I would say that a school Principle has contact with a great many of the parents of the school in different situations.

    • Farang

      Kids do not normally try to confront teachers unless they feel provoked.

      You really don’t know what is happening in schools, do you?

    • Mark

      Farang

      You really don’t know what is happening in schools, do you?

      I have two kids in school. I’m not totally bereft of any perspective. But tell me how you see it.

    • Farang

      That is exactly what is happening nowadays. Students seems to know it very clearly that teachers can’t pretty much do anything to them, and so the bad apples can terrorise everyone.

      Here’s another example:

    • Mark

      I understand how dealing with some students can be difficult, but getting forceful is not an answer. The video has been taken down. Care to point out what it is?

    • Farang

      It was taken during a class, where one student is first making noises and finally when teacher tells him to be quiet, he starts verbally attacking the teacher. This continues several minutes (propably longer but the video ends). This one “bully” is causing disturbance and therefore making it impossible to continue teaching and making other student to suffer. I don’t think the female teacher even could throw the boy out if she wanted as the boy is much bigger than the teacher.

    • Mark

      The solution doesn’t lie in the moment. Likewise, the teacher can approach the school authorities if is a serious breach. Typically schools will involve the parents and have meetings to try to get to the bottom of the disturbances. It is hard to say from your example if this student would be at the very beginning of this process or is at the end and that the system currently in place is therefore failing.

      Can you answer whether this is beginning, middle or end of a school disciplinary process?

  10. Farang

    The issue here is how you back up your claims that the Principle is ‘corrupt’ just because she has professional contacts with the girl’s mother. I would say that a school Principle has contact with a great many of the parents of the school in different situations.

    The student was a BOY, not a GIRL.

    • Mark

      Well, that’s what I thought, but the video looked like a girl. 🙂

  11. Farang

    I would be very surprised if a physical assault on a student would result in only a warning. Are you sure that this is the normal course of action? Or are you repeating what Sami wrote about this?

    Physical assault is totally different thing compared to using force to remove student. In case of physical assault, it is a matter of criminal law and that is exactly what police has been investigating. Police has already given a statement that this was NOT a physical assault.

    • Mark

      Well then I guess the question was whether it was considered excessive force. I don’t buy it that he was sacked and that this was upheld by several different people in addition to the original principal. It just doesn’t make sense in a country that you are constantly reminding us has very little corruption.

    • Farang

      Do the research. The only people backing up the decision are the ones who are in the same close circle with this principal.

      Every other instance is against firing the teacher.

    • Farang

      Finland is one of countries with most corruption. I have never claimed otherwise.

    • Farang

      It’s the one corrupt elite that runs this crap. Whenever one of the “team” screws up they arrange highly paid positions to them, even with no competence.

      Remember the appointment of Eva Biaudet? She got chosen even when she didn’t fulfill the requirements. And there were lots of competent applicants who did fulfill the requirements and they weren’t even interviewed. How can you say there is no corruption?

  12. Farang

    Did some more digging and found out the deputy mayor is also part of this same program as is the principle and student’s mother.

    Small circles rolls around 🙂

    That was the final missing link. Now officially every person who has backed up the firing of the teacher is part of the same circle of people.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –Did some more digging and found out the deputy mayor is also part of this same program as is the principle and student’s mother.

      Why do you think this is important information if they act professionally and follow the rules?

    • Farang

      Because they have NOT acted professionally and they have NOT followed the rules.

      This is all about principal abusing his power to get a revenge for the teacher and then her friends who belong to the same circle are backing her up. That is called corruption. That’s why it’s important to find out their connections.

    • Mark

      Farang

      This is all about principal abusing his power to get a revenge for the teacher and then her friends who belong to the same circle are backing her up. That is called corruption. That’s why it’s important to find out their connections.

      This may or may not be true. What is certain is that this is a very serious charge, and if the only evidence for this is that they have come across each other through their professional work, then that is not enough. Indeed, the defamation of these individuals done by making these charges would be totally unacceptable.

      The question in my mind is whether people are looking too hard for an alternative narrative simply as an excuse to not face the fact that a teacher has been disciplined for being too heavy handed with a pupil, which in most people’s eyes is the key thing here, not whether A knew B and had sat in the same room with C.

    • Mark

      Please draw the circle, because saying there is a circle is pretty meaningless – six degrees and all that!

Leave a Reply