Two-way integration still has a long way to go in Finland

by , under All categories

What is the aim of Finland’s new integration law, which came into force in September 2011? While the law talks about two-way integration, what does it mean and how is it promoted? 

  Finland’s integration program is like an old abandoned Cadillac. It awakens our optimism but discourages us from acting because it is too costly to restore.

The fact that some politicians in Finland still speak of maassa maan tavala, or ”live in the country as they live, or leave,” reveals that there is still hostility against two-way integration.

Irrespective of the arguments, the key question we should ask is what are these country’s new inhabitants adapting to? Are they encouraged to throw away their cultures and learn how to live in a white Finns’ world? Or is the aim the creation of a healthy bicultural or multicultural identity and society?

There’s been a lot of debate in Finland about the “threat” of so-called ethnic “ghettos” in places like Helsinki and Turku’s Varisuo. Certainly matters like crime and unemployment are social issues that must be addressed by society in any neighborhood.

Why do some consider it a bad matter if ethnic groups and immigrants are concentrated in a neighborhood?

When Finns emigrated to different parts of the world like the Americas and Sweden, the aim was to be where other Finns lived. In my research of the Finns of Argentina, Colonia Finlandesa was a colony where up to the 1930s Finnish was spoken more than Spanish.

The promotion of assimilation as opposed to integration has given birth to a new underclass of second-generation Finns with immigrant backgrounds. Some live in a permanent gray zone where they not only experience animosity from the host culture but from their parents’ culture as well. Who is promoting their acceptance and bolstering their self-esteem?

Another distressing trend was a survey published in early 2011 in Opettaja magazine that reveals 41% of teachers polled would like to place limits on how many children with immigrant backgrounds can attend class.

Opposition to ethnically concentrated neighborhoods and schools reveals in my opinion support for assimilation and opposition to two-way integration.

A question: How are immigrants, never mind their children and grandchildren, ever going to create a sense of cultural pride, identity and self-esteem if the expectation is integration but the reality is assimilation?

I personally want to see a Finland that is culturally diverse where we can embrace and reap synergies from our diverseness.

The 10,000-strong Roma minority that has lived in Finland for 500 years is a good example and a warning of what happens to a group if they don’t assimilate.  The Roma have paid a very high price for not assimilating into white Finnish society through social exclusion and racism.

A Roma elder expressed to me the issue in the following terms: “Even if we have been discriminated against in Finland, we still hold our culture. Nobody can destroy that.”

 

  1. Yossie

    Finland is the only place where finnish language and culture can survive. I see this “Two-way integration” just a mean for you people to corner the “white Finns’ world” as you put it.

    Do you care at all that this is all we have? Immigrant can go back to his home country, if he is worried about his culture and identity. If things go against finnish culture and languge in here. Thats the end of the line for us finns.

    Add to that, what you want us to integrate to is the backward muslim culture. No thank you! I personally don’t want any kind of muslim influence in here! If Enrique and his cronies want so badly to throw rocks at women who have got raped then go to your favorite muslim country!

    • Mark

      Yossie

      “Two-way integration” just a mean for you people to corner the “white Finns’ world” as you put it.

      Two-way integration is a recognition that people arriving here from other shores bring their own heritage, language and family memories. It makes sense that those people will learn Finnish or Swedish and that their descendents will have access to a much broader set of histories and traditions that a person brought up within one culture. It’s certainly fair to say that Finns will not be forced any time soon to give up speaking Finnish, practicing the Nordic and Finnish customs and traditions and generally doing pretty much anything they feel compelled to do in order to ‘feel’ Finnish.

      Do you care at all that this is all we have?

      I certainly do. If the only sense of identity that you have is built around a 100-year old nationalism, then I feel sorry for you. The world and life is bigger than that.

      Immigrant can go back to his home country, if he is worried about his culture and identity.

      My guess is that you wouldn’t have a clue or be at all bothered if a person from abroad was to take part in his own culture. Let’s see now, are you going to stop immigrants reading newspapers in their own language, or visiting internet sites in their native language? Are you going to stop them buying music from their native artists or books and poetry written by their national authors and poets? Are you going to stop them taking part in political discussions, praying at night or any time during the day? Are you going to tell them what make of wellington boots they can wear in the Finnish winters and what to put in their Xmas stockings for their kids?

      You don’t seem to have a clue about the actual practicalities of ‘performing’ culture and embodying an identity.

      If things go against finnish culture and languge in here.

      Finnish culture has been undergoing changes as a result of globalisation, media, import, and travel by Finns for some time. It’s an absolute myth to imagine Finnish culture is something like a slab of concrete sitting in Senate Square in Helsinki that can be carted off to Ämmässuo!

      Add to that, what you want us to integrate to is the backward muslim culture. No thank you! I personally don’t want any kind of muslim influence in here! If Enrique and his cronies want so badly to throw rocks at women who have got raped then go to your favorite muslim country!

      I would say your bigotry and ignorance is what is backward Yossie. Funny how you pretend to be all for women and yet by refering to Islam and Muslims in the way you do, you violate the basic rights of about half a billion women in the world. Funny that, eh! You are a xenophic, ignorant bigot, and yet you stand in judgement on foreigners. Just goes to show that you don’t have to go abroad to find people who don’t appreciate civilisation.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –Finland is the only place where finnish language and culture can survive. I see this “Two-way integration” just a mean for you people to corner the “white Finns’ world” as you put it.

      Thank you for revealing your real thoughts on the topic. Your recipe for Finland would spell death to the Finns as we know them. I think it is pretty disingenuous how you shift from “backward Muslims” to throwing stones at women. Do you really feel that threatened and so insecure about you you are?

  2. Farang

    I personally want to see a Finland that is culturally diverse where we can embrace and reap synergies from our diverseness.

    I personally don’t want to see culturally diverse Finland. And lots of Finns share my opinion.

    You can’t just say that my opinion is wrong. It’s as good as yours. We just disagree on this matter. But your opinion is no better than mine.

    The 10,000-strong Roma minority that has lived in Finland for 500 years is a good example and a warning of what happens to a group if they don’t assimilate. The Roma have paid a very high price for not assimilating into white Finnish society through social exclusion and racism.

    Finns have paid very high price too, considering how many people Romas have murdered, robbed, etc.

    A Roma elder expressed to me the issue in the following terms: “Even if we have been discriminated against in Finland, we still hold our culture. Nobody can destroy that.”

    Well, to be honest, they couldn’t even have their culture without us finns. Their culture can live only because finns let them live on our expense. They are not even graceful for that, propably because they don’t understand. They are just used to get everything for free, but they refuse to understand that someone is paying that everything. Just ask yourself a honest question: How many percent of Romas are employed and how many live off with benefits.

    • Mark

      I personally don’t want to see culturally diverse Finland. And lots of Finns share my opinion.

      I don’t have any particular ‘aim’ for diversity, only that people who are to a degree are different should not be misrepresented or end up with second-class citizenship because of a tight fabric of prejudice that assumes that ‘diverse’ means somehow second-rate.

      You can’t just say that my opinion is wrong.

      Why not? You are saying we are not allowed to judge the moral content of your opinions? I think at the very least you should be open to criticism. When you say that you don’t want to see diversity, what is your reaction to that diversity? When you say lots of Finns likewise don’t want to ‘see it’, what does that mean for those situations in which Finns come face to face with it?

      Finns have paid very high price too, considering how many people Romas have murdered, robbed, etc.

      You sound like a Nazi. Let me guess, when Finns murder and rob other Finns, this doesn’t force you to condemn ‘the Finns’ or talk about Finns as a group being unworthy Finnish citizens? No, that would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it. The Roma are a population like any other. Using phenomena that occur in EVERY population to condemn a specific population or to discriminate against that population is inherantly immoral, Farang.

      Well, to be honest, they couldn’t even have their culture without us finns.

      Yikes, the arrogance of the man. What a pile of tosh. First, the question is whether as Finnish citizens they have the same rights as other Finns? If you say yes, then they are entitled to any benefits that they are eligible for, in the same way that Finns are entitled where eligible. If you are going to say ‘you are unemployed’, you do not deserve to have any benefits to support you during that period of unemployment, then what on earth qualifies Finns for that support? As far as I know, there isn’t a magic number of unemployed where the state tells Finns that they are no longer entitled to benefits. Otherwise, rural unemployed young men (25+% unemployment rate) would not get any support. Now the wider issue of Roma employment is something that has to be addressed. If employers share even a small part of the prejudice that you claim is common in Finland, then Roma are going to find it much harder to find and remain employed.

      Let’s see now, Farang, a test for you. If you were an employer and you required your staff to wear a ‘uniform’, and one of your employment candidates was Roma who tried to explain to you that her tradition requires that she wears her own traditional costume, even at work, would you employ this person? Do you consider this to be discrimination?

    • Farang

      Let’s see now, Farang, a test for you. If you were an employer and you required your staff to wear a ‘uniform’, and one of your employment candidates was Roma who tried to explain to you that her tradition requires that she wears her own traditional costume, even at work, would you employ this person? Do you consider this to be discrimination?

      No, I wouldn’t hire her.
      And no, it would not be discrimination.

      If you say that it would be discrimination, they you approve double standards and unequal treatment of people.

    • Farang

      Because she refuses to follow common rules that are equally same for ALL employees.

    • Mark

      And if another Muslim man wore a traditional beard, would you have a policy for clean-shaven or ‘tidy’ beards? Would you therefore not offer the job to the bearded man just because of his traditional beard and do you think that this is discrimination?

    • Farang

      And if another Muslim man wore a traditional beard, would you have a policy for clean-shaven or ‘tidy’ beards? Would you therefore not offer the job to the bearded man just because of his traditional beard and do you think that this is discrimination?

      Ofcourse not. But you mentioned the uniform. For example flight attendants have uniforms. If someone would refuse to wear the uniform, I would not hire that person. That has nothing to do with racism or discrimination. Everyone is treated equally.

      It seems that you once again want to give special permissions to some people because of their religion. Why do you want to treat people differently based on their background?

    • Mark

      Farang

      Why do you want to treat people differently based on their background?

      Well, for a start, because they ask for it. If a Roma woman wants to do a job, but the only obstacle is the uniform, then yes, I would seek to overcome that obstacle. It is interesting that in none of these hypotheticals are you even trying to explore compromise.

      EU legislation basically says that unless the uniform is essential to the nature of the job, then employers cannot discriminate on the basis of dress. In the US, it is a legal requirement that employers actually seek to modify the dress so that it can be worn even over traditional dress. That seems a fairly reasonable requirement.

      It’s strange that we would let a piece of clothing stop us from employing someone who is otherwise perfectly capable of fulfilling the job’s duties. Doesn’t that strike you as a little childish, irregardless of the racist overtones?

    • Farang

      It’s strange that we would let a piece of clothing stop us from employing someone who is otherwise perfectly capable of fulfilling the job’s duties. Doesn’t that strike you as a little childish, irregardless of the racist overtones?

      No. If I have candidates who are also perfectly capable but won’t make a problem about uniform, then ofcourse I rather hire that kind of person.

    • Mark

      Farang

      No. If I have candidates who are also perfectly capable but won’t make a problem about uniform, then ofcourse I rather hire that kind of person.

      If that person wore that dress for cultural or religious reasons and there was no specific reason for needing to wear that uniform in order to do the job, and assuming that you would have been able to modify the uniform in order to present company logos etc, then you almost certainly would be breaking the law by discriminating against that person.

      It’s pretty clear that you do not understand what discrimination is, particularly in the employment sector, or the even care about its ramifications, and yet you come on here slagging of Roma and other group subject to prejudice and expect people to take you seriously. You really do insult people’s intelligence, Farang.

    • Farang

      Mark

      If that person wore that dress for cultural or religious reasons and there was no specific reason for needing to wear that uniform in order to do the job, and assuming that you would have been able to modify the uniform in order to present company logos etc, then you almost certainly would be breaking the law by discriminating against that person.

      If that would be breaking law, then the law is obviously faulty. Why would someone have the right to override someone else’s rights only because he/she wants to do something because of cultural or religious reasons? Culture and religion are people’s own choices.

      If I would have a religion which demands me to always wear leather pants and wifebeater T-shirt and I would apply as police, should they still hire me and allow me to perform my duties in those clothes?

      If I have a company, I have every right to define the rules there. If someone doesn’t like the rules, nobody is forcing him to work in my company.

      It’s pretty clear that you do not understand what discrimination is, particularly in the employment sector, or the even care about its ramifications, and yet you come on here slagging of Roma and other group subject to prejudice and expect people to take you seriously. You really do insult people’s intelligence, Farang.

      I think you have twisted understanding of discrimination. In your opinion anyone can just make up some own rules (eg. religious) and then everyone else have to adapt to that. And what makes it twisted or sick is the fact that you don’t give that priviledge to other people. You don’t allow eg. employer to make up rules, which employees would need to adapt to. And also you seem willing to give these priviledges only to certain religious groups. Once again we have proof that you are discriminating and you want unequal treatment of people based on their religion/ethnicity/etc.

    • Mark

      If that would be breaking law, then the law is obviously faulty

      As if that was the only possibility…lol. Perhaps its that lawmakers in Finland on the whole try to support all members of society and provide adequate, practical and realistic protection against discrimination. Not only that, but Finland’s legislation has to fall in line with EU employment laws too.

      Why would someone have the right to override someone else’s rights only because he/she wants to do something because of cultural or religious reasons? Culture and religion are people’s own choices.

      This is a very confrontational way that you approach these issues. There are several actors and several needs to take into account. The right of the employer to use dress as a way of promoting their own business or indeed as a way of actually doing their business. The right of the individual to follow their own religious observances when it comes to dress. The first question is how necessary the dress code is to the work itself. If you are a surgeon, you must obviously wear appropriate clothing. If you are a telesales assistant, how you look almost certainly doesn’t matter to the core function of the business. Second, can the dresscode be modified to appease the needs of both the employer and the employee. This is an obvious starting point, seeking compromise, and reflects a sensible and respectful approach to individual identity and the employer’s identity. Third, the employer cannot be allowed to discriminate on the basis of dresscodes without establishing that the dress code is an essential element of their business and that it is applied consistently.

      What you have been suggesting is illegal discrimination with no discussion, and even the bald assumption that someone who turns up for an interview in traditional clothing is unwilling to compromise on the dress code.

      If I have a company, I have every right to define the rules there.

      Well, my little fascist dictator, I have news for you – if you start a company, you have to abide by a great deal of laws that are established to govern the running of that company, from tax laws, employment legislation to business practices. Seems like you don’t have much of a clue about how society actually functions, Farang.

      In your opinion anyone can just make up some own rules (eg. religious) and then everyone else have to adapt to that.

      If this were true, I would understand you being critical, but that is not the case. As usual, you misrepresent our opinions to make them appear ridiculous or indefensible. First, people who are religious don’t ‘make up the rules’. It’s fairly safe to say that the ordinances that go with various religions are well-known to most of us. Second, the level of adaptation required by an employer to allow an employee to wear a particular garment is in all likelihood fairly small. The situation you are presenting is one completely lacking in flexibility and dialogue – where YOU exercise prejudice over minorities and assume you have the legal right to do so when in fact you don’t.

      And also you seem willing to give these priviledges only to certain religious groups

      You haven’t a clue about what I’m willing or not willing to countenance. This is a subject about which you simply cannot issue a blanket decree. It has to be viewed on a case by case basis.

      Once again we have proof that you are discriminating and you want unequal treatment of people based on their religion/ethnicity/etc.

      Seeing what you want to see, as usual, and ignoring the merits of the argument. Respecting and accommodating people’s religious identity is a form of ‘unequal treatment’ that most of us are quite happy to tolerate. For example, it’s simply rude to swear or cuss in front of a priest, though I’m sure that most priests have heard it all before.

      You seem so hung up about the danger of ‘giving something away’, that you even forget simple good manners, Farang.

  3. Farang

    And one thing about two-way integration. How would you expect two-way integration to work if for example a finn would move to a muslim country?

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –And one thing about two-way integration. How would you expect two-way integration to work if for example a finn would move to a muslim country?

      We are NOT talking about Muslim countries but about Finland. Every heard of the saying, “two wrongs don’t make a right?”

  4. Farang

    We are NOT talking about Muslim countries but about Finland. Every heard of the saying, “two wrongs don’t make a right?”

    No, but this proves your double standards. You expect something from Finns, which you don’t expect from Muslims.

    • Enrique Tessieri

      –No, but this proves your double standards. You expect something from Finns, which you don’t expect from Muslims.

      Farang, so using your standards, we should commit human rights violations. Is that what you want us to do? One set of laws for the locals and another one for the immigrants and visible minorities.

  5. Farang

    What you have been suggesting is illegal discrimination with no discussion, and even the bald assumption that someone who turns up for an interview in traditional clothing is unwilling to compromise on the dress code.

    I never made that assumption. My assumption was that the dress code is discussed with by candidate and employer and if that discussion shows that candidate is not willing to obey the rules, I wouldn’t hire that person.

    • Mark

      Farang

      if that discussion shows that candidate is not willing to obey the rules, I wouldn’t hire that person.

      That is not a discussion. And you are not simply ‘not hiring that person’, you are discriminating against them on the basis of their nationality and ethnic identity. No big deal, to you, I know, but society at large has sought to make it illegal for idiots like you to stop your discrimination, ignorance and small-mindedness from negatively affecting minorities. Easier said than done, for sure.

  6. Farang

    Farang, so using your standards, we should commit human rights violations. Is that what you want us to do? One set of laws for the locals and another one for the immigrants and visible minorities.

    It’s not human rights violation. Every country has every right to set laws that protects and gives priviledges to it’s own citizens compared to non-citizens.

    If things would work YOUR way, it would mean that every single person in the world could just enter Finland and start collecting welfare. In your opinion everything else is discrimination and human rights violation. Can’t you see anything wrong in your logic?

    • Mark

      Farang

      It’s not human rights violation. Every country has every right to set laws that protects and gives priviledges to it’s own citizens compared to non-citizens.

      Farang, a human rights violation is not a human rights violation because they are not citizens? Human rights refer to universal rights that apply to all citizens, regardless of their status inside a country, that is why they are called human rights.

      If things would work YOUR way, it would mean that every single person in the world could just enter Finland and start collecting welfare. In your opinion everything else is discrimination and human rights violation. Can’t you see anything wrong in your logic?

      There is something seriously wrong in how you represent the opinions and ideas of other people, Farang, before we get anywhere near the logic of the argument. Nowever on this website has anyone EVER suggested that Finland would have a totally open border. NEVER. And yet you are happy in your stupidity to offer this as our opinion. No amount of telling you, and God knows how many times you have been told, seems to make any difference. You WANT to believe this. I understand. It’s an easy straw man to argue against, and i suppose that makes you feel secure in your attitudes. Problem is, you are not actually engaging in reality here. You are not debating, you are not arguing, you are doing what little children do when they are two years old, they attempt to take the toys so that no-one else can play with them.

      Finland has an obligation to treat humanely anyone who enters their border. Now if they were arriving in their millions and it was seriously affecting Finland’s service provision, then I’d understand you wanting to talk about restrictions. But they are not. They are few in number. Many are like me, who arrive already with an education and skills and walk into jobs and immediately start paying taxes. This constant mention of ‘welfare’ as if it was a default for immigrants is false and misleading. I’m assuming that you probably left school and immediately ‘went on to welfare’ no? Have you not understood that welfare is a support net that helps people ‘transition into work’? The way you stigmatize welfare recipients is ugly and ignorant.

    • JusticeDemon

      Farang

      I wonder whether you even bother to maintain any kind of consistency. Here is the story so far:

      1. The ATL article refers to “two-way integration”.

      2. Farang asks how two-way integration works when a Finn moves to a Moslem country.

      3. Enrique responds that the ATL article concerns Finland, and that misconduct in other countries does not justify corresponding misconduct in Finland.

      4. Farang argues that this demonstrates double standards.

      5. Enrique points out that Farang is recommending a policymaking approach that involves human rights violations and legal norms that vary according to origin and minority membership.

      6. Farang asserts that no human rights violation arises when a country exercises a right to discriminate on grounds of national citizenship, and also asserts that by contesting this right Enrique is recommending an illogical renunciation of Finnish national sovereignty.

      Now it is very interesting that Farang’s insistence on national sovereignty comes in the context of a discussion that began with Farang’s criticism of Finnish government policy on the grounds that it is not consistent with policy in a Moslem country.

      Can’t you see anything wrong in your logic?

      Lol

  7. Farang

    That is not a discussion. And you are not simply ‘not hiring that person’, you are discriminating against them on the basis of their nationality and ethnic identity. No big deal, to you, I know, but society at large has sought to make it illegal for idiots like you to stop your discrimination, ignorance and small-mindedness from negatively affecting minorities. Easier said than done, for sure.

    Everyone can see what your agenda here is. It is again the same old crap that natives are forced to adapt to immigrants habits and culture. That is wrong. It is always the immigrants who must adapt to the culture of the country where they move to.

    I don’t care what the law says. I would not hire that person. And good luck to that person in court trying to prove what was the reason she/he was not hired 😀

    Can you see what this kind of laws causes? Because of these laws, the hiring managers will not bring these kind of discussions up and they just systematically don’t hire this kind of people, even if those people would have no problems in wearing the uniform. Why? Because they can’t discuss about it, because that would give weapons for the candidate in court. But when these discussions are not held, then there is no way the candidate could prove in court what was the reasons he/she was not hired.

    So, once again, stupid law which was supposed to protect immigrants is actually working against them. Way to go 🙂

    • Mark

      Farang

      Everyone can see what your agenda here is. It is again the same old crap that natives are forced to adapt to immigrants habits and culture. That is wrong. It is always the immigrants who must adapt to the culture of the country where they move to.

      Good, I’m glad that people can see my agenda. It’s really very simple. People should be treated with dignity and fairness. Tell me how natives are being ‘forced’ to adapt to immigrants? One example? Forced? Please, I’m waiting to hear and understand.

  8. Farang

    There is something seriously wrong in how you represent the opinions and ideas of other people, Farang, before we get anywhere near the logic of the argument. Nowever on this website has anyone EVER suggested that Finland would have a totally open border. NEVER. And yet you are happy in your stupidity to offer this as our opinion.

    No, it’s your logic what is faulty. When someone suggest that some foreigner should be deported, YOU make the claim that it’s human rights violation. In other words this mean that you claim that it is a human right for people to be allowed to stay in Finland. That is YOUR claim, not mine.

    • Mark

      Farang

      No, it’s your logic what is faulty. When someone suggest that some foreigner should be deported, YOU make the claim that it’s human rights violation. In other words this mean that you claim that it is a human right for people to be allowed to stay in Finland. That is YOUR claim, not mine.

      Evidence please? Where has this happened on Migrant Tales? Farang, you are living in fanstasy land, my friend.

  9. Farang

    Mark

    Finland has an obligation to treat humanely anyone who enters their border.

    Ok. Now maybe would be good time to ask you: What do you consider treating humanely?

    Do you mean that this person should be given money?
    Do you mean that this person should be allowed to stay even if he commits crimes against people?

    What do you want? Tell me!

    • Mark

      Farang

      Ok. Now maybe would be good time to ask you: What do you consider treating humanely?

      Do you not know what it means to be treated humanely? Okay, that explains a lot.

      Should the person be given money? If that is the most effective means by which they have a roof over their head and food in their belly, then yes.

      Should that person be allowed to ‘stay’ even when he commits crimes? What does he or she deserve? It is for the courts to decide that. Anything over and above that is discrimination.

      Ask yourself though, what does it mean to ‘stay’? Perhaps this is a very simple question for you. ‘Stay’ means ‘stay in Finland’. But for me, that quesiton is really pretty profound. When you no longer belong in the place where you grew up, then where do you ‘stay’? And what rights do you have to stay? Human rights imply that all people at all times have s place to stay. Think about that for a moment, because it’s profound.

      Of course, anyone that commits a crime should face consequences and ‘punishment’. But, equality before the law is really an absolute fundamental right for all citizens regardless of circumstances.

      That person ‘deserves’ to be dealt with and punished by the courts like any other citizen of Finland. We consider for the most part that the Finnish legal system balances the complex situation of crime – from circumstances, to remorse, to punishement, to rehabilitiation. So why would we seek to add anything to this just because an individual is a foreigner?

      It doesn’t make sense to me, unless you already start with the idea that ‘being foreign’ is itself some kind of crime, and therefore any additional crime reveals the ‘core crime’ of being a foreigner.

      Any watering down of the basic equality before the Law of all Finnish citizens and even residents is in my view wrong.

      The question of what the judicial system is there for in the first place is also important here. Is it an istrument of revenge, punishment or rehabilitation or any combination thereof? If we choose not to work towards rehabilitation, then we fail future ‘possible’ victims. If we stigmatize criminals, we may already be putting obstacles in the way of rehabilitation and therefore adding to the possibility of creating future victims. We have to aim for a solution here.

      I also recognise that there are a number of individuals in any population who do not understand what the concept of ‘humanity’ means for the rest of us, and perhaps for those, rehabilitiation is unrealistic. In which case, I would hope that the system keeps other citizens safe, first and foremost. But the vast majority of ‘criminals’ do have the potential for rehabilitation. Norway is a good model in this respect.

      I want people to be safe. I want immigrants to be safe from angry arseholes looking for a fight. I want ordinary people to be safe. The idea is certainly not to compromise that.

      But, I want people living in Finland, regardless of their circumstances, or even their ‘status’ to enjoy at least the basics of humane treatment. For sure, ‘non-residents’ will not have the same rights or access into Finnish society that residents have, but I would hope that the avenue towards that equality is fair and reasonable, and not subject to racism or discrimination, and also that they would not be treated like criminals. Human rights means in the most basic sense that they are treated as ‘equally human’. Treating people as criminals or even ‘potential criminals’ is clearly treating people as less than human and I can find no reason to justify that. Not only that, but I really think that this is something that should be fundamental to a society, that they would stand up for that minimum dignity.

  10. Farang

    Good, I’m glad that people can see my agenda. It’s really very simple. People should be treated with dignity and fairness. Tell me how natives are being ‘forced’ to adapt to immigrants? One example? Forced? Please, I’m waiting to hear and understand.

    Well, here is one example from this same thread:

    Person A has a company and he has designed an uniform for it’s employers that they use when they are with customers. This is ok for everyone and everything is fine.

    Then comes immigrant and Person A is FORCED to alter the uniform because of the immigrant.

    Are you seriously that ignorant, Mark? Why do you ask for example, while you have yourself just a bit earlier discussed exactly about that kind of situation? Or is is so that you honestly don’t understand what you are talking about?

    • Mark

      Then comes immigrant and Person A is FORCED to alter the uniform because of the immigrant.

      I think you miss the point here, absolutely completely.

      If the issue here is related to being a Muslim or a Roma, then this is not an issue related to immgrants, as these are groups that have been in Finland for centuries, they are generational Finns.

      Telling me that this is an example of natives being forced to adapt to immigrants is therefore ridiculous and completely inaccurate.

      There is a constitutional commitment that was given already in 1919, to living in a country free of discrimination on the grounds of religion – Chapter 2, Basic Rights and Liberties, Section 6: No one shall, without an acceptable reason, be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex, age, origin, language, religion, conviction, opinion, health, disability or other reason that concerns his or her person.

      Are you so ignorant Farang that you do not even understand the freedoms and liberties that define Finland as a modern democracy?

  11. Farang

    Mark

    Should the person be given money? If that is the most effective means by which they have a roof over their head and food in their belly, then yes.

    Here you are effectively saying that anyone from anywhere in the world should be allowed to come to Finland and live on our expense. No reason to argue this, because this is exactly what you say above. How can that kind of system work? It can’t.

    Of course, anyone that commits a crime should face consequences and ‘punishment’. But, equality before the law is really an absolute fundamental right for all citizens regardless of circumstances.

    If someone is deported, it has nothing to do with being inequal. Many people like you often claim that it is inequal because if a Finn and immigrant makes the same crime, then immigrant is punished more severely if in addition to his jail time he is also deported.

    That is idiotism, pure form. That deportation has nothing to do with equality. In same way the Finn is “deported” to his own country, the difference is that the Finn already is in his home country.

    And as long as the immigrant doesn’t have Finnish citizenship, his home country is not Finland.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Here you are effectively saying that anyone from anywhere in the world should be allowed to come to Finland and live on our expense

      Absolute rubbish. “Effectively saying” is not the same as “saying”, especially when doing so you expressely contradict what I have actually said, which was that no-one here has suggested an open door policy for Finland.

      How can that kind of system work? It can’t.

      The system is such that if a citizen of another country arrives in Finland and is brought into the custody of the Finnish authorities, they have an obligation under the UN Convention on the rights of refugees to treat them humanely, which I think we can both agree means that they will not starve and they will not be on the street. That is the system, and any other system is UNWORKABLE. For a start, even deporting somebody means that proper procedures are followed that process the case, as well as establishing that there is a safe country to return that person. Again, anything less is inhumane and unworkable.

      That deportation has nothing to do with equality.

      Calling it idiocy does not change the fact. Even once an immigrant becomes a ‘citizen’ of Finland, then he will not receive equal treatment because legal punishment would involve additional penalties. I cannot see the justification and you have not given any either. Talking about a ‘Finn’ being deported to his own country sounds like the beer talking.

      And as long as the immigrant doesn’t have Finnish citizenship, his home country is not Finland.

      I think this is clearly a ridiculous stance, though I understand that it has some legal status. First, in so much as the person resides in Finland, has a family in Finland, has perhaps even grown up in Finland, has other members of his family in Finland, then clearly Finland ‘is his country’. That person may also have contributed taxes here for many years. These are among the issues considered when processing a deportation, so for you to say they are not relevant plainly contradicts what the Finnish authorities consider important. I guess you will come out again saying that it shouldn’t be this way – which is another way of saying that you would ditch any kind of sensible or humanitarian approach to dealing with immigrants.

    • Mark

      I sincerely apologise, Farang. You obviously just ‘completely’ missed the argument.

      The Constitutional basic right to live in Finland was written for Finns, some of whom already were Muslims and some of whom already were Roma when the Constitution was already written up. So, fulfilling those commitments today in such a way that it also protects Muslims or Roma arriving in Finland is not changing anything in Finland, but rather living up to a commitment made nearly 100 years ago.

      You are full of crap, Farang, and the only thing you can come back with is my use of the ‘absolutely’. Sad.

  12. Farang

    There is a constitutional commitment that was given already in 1919, to living in a country free of discrimination on the grounds of religion – Chapter 2, Basic Rights and Liberties, Section 6: No one shall, without an acceptable reason, be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex, age, origin, language, religion, conviction, opinion, health, disability or other reason that concerns his or her person.
    Are you so ignorant Farang that you do not even understand the freedoms and liberties that define Finland as a modern democracy?

    And yet you are suggesting that muslims and romas should be treated differently and allow them to wear different outfit than other people.

    I really can’t figure out what do you want: Equal treatment, or different treatment.

    • Mark

      Farang

      And yet you are suggesting that muslims and romas should be treated differently and allow them to wear different outfit than other people.

      So, those two brain cells of yours are really working hard tonight, eh!?

      I fail to see how modifying a uniform to enable Roma people or Muslims to comply with a dress code is discriminating against other Finns. How are other Finns the victims in this? Exactly how do they suffer?

      However, if a Roma person or a Muslim are specifically denied a job because of the employer’s unwillingness to even contemplate modifying a dress code where it is not necessary for the nature of the work, then it’s very clear how they have suffered, in that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity or their religion. That’s a real victim.

      Likewise, it’s not like an employer offers a uniform in only one size or one gender. The employer already modifies the dress code to accommodate natural differences according to size and gender in the population. Modifying it within reason to accommodate other natural differences such as ethnicity or religion is no great stretch and does not leave behind any victims.

      I really can’t figure out what do you want: Equal treatment, or different treatment.

      I think you need to start thinking about ‘equality of outcome’ as opposed to ‘same treatment’ as the basis for equality. Your idea of ‘same treatment’ is unworkable. No-one expects everyone to get the same treatment for a great many perfectly legitimate reasons: 1) people’s different need, 2) people’s different gender and shape, 3) people’s different abilities (hence you have to be 16 to drive a car), 4) people’s different occupations etc.

      The key thing is that all Muslims and all Roma are treated the same. And where a dress code is modified within reason to accommodate a clearly distinctive religious, ethnic, or cultural identity, then this is applied consistently in all such cases.

      Honestly, hands up those who would protest if a Muslim woman wore a hair veil as part of her official uniform?

  13. Farang

    I fail to see how modifying a uniform to enable Roma people or Muslims to comply with a dress code is discriminating against other Finns. How are other Finns the victims in this? Exactly how do they suffer?

    Point 1. This forces the employer to pay for something that would be unnecessary without this discrimination. Or did you really think that the modifications would be free.

    Point 2. Depending on whether the modification is done only for the muslim/roma or for every employee
    a) EVERYONE have to change their outfit BECAUSE of this one muslim/roma
    b) Outfits are no longer same for everyone, which was the initial purpose of the uniform. Do you know what UNI and FORM mean?

    In every case it is best for the employer to just not hire that kind of persons. I know I wouldn’t hire troublemakers.

    Now Mark, please answer this question:

    Why do you feel that it’s always the “everyone else” who needs to do the work and adapt to the situation caused by immigrant?

    Why can’t that immigrant/muslim/roma be the one that needs to do the work and adapt to the situation which is already ok for everyone else?

    If you have a group of 10 people and 9 want’s to go to McDonalds and 1 wants pizza, wouldn’t it be just common sense to go to McDonalds?

    You treat religion and culture like it was somekind of ultimate truth. Guess what? It’s not. They are all INVENTED features. What harm would it cause if a roma would wear normal uniform? Nothing, zero.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Point 1. This forces the employer to pay for something that would be unnecessary without this discrimination. Or did you really think that the modifications would be free

      Not necessarily. A woman choosing to wear a veil will probably cost the employer nothing unless he insists on a particular colour.

      A garment that is bigger to accommodate a religious undergarment or traditional costume is quite possibly something the employer already has, by virtue of taking account of people’s different sizes.

      As a fundamental principle, you cannot oppose accommodation of variation within society on the issue of cost alone. Otherwise, you would oppose wheelchair ramps for the disabled and incubators for premature infants. Clearly, there is added benefit when you ‘include’ people within society’s normal spheres, such as the employment sphere. If you are happy for these people to be unemployed because of discrimination, fair enough, you have the right to think like a bigot, but you almost certainly lose the right to complain about those unemployment levels.

      a) EVERYONE have to change their outfit BECAUSE of this one muslim/roma

      An example please? I don’t see that this is so.

      b) Outfits are no longer same for everyone, which was the initial purpose of the uniform. Do you know what UNI and FORM mean?

      Gosh, half a brain really is dangerous, isn’t it. Outfits are different for all sorts of reasons, gender and size being two, and occupational status being another. Uniforms are therefore not ‘uniform’ in the strict sense that you imply. Most national legislation on this issue recognises that some occupations require a uniform to carry symbolic authority that is recongisable, such as the police. Other occupations require a ‘uniform’ as a means of protection or function of the job. This is where considerations are sensible in asking religious people to abide by the dress code. But where the uniform is not an integral part of the job, then there is clearly room for compromise. You know, that little ingredient that makes things go smoothly?

      Let me guess, you are divorced with an estranged wife, Farang? You never learnt the art of compromise, did you?!

      In every case it is best for the employer to just not hire that kind of persons. I know I wouldn’t hire troublemakers.

      So someone insisting on maintaining their identity is a troublemaker? You just reveal your ignorance and your own dictatorial attitude. You don’t even begin to question your own right to be judge and jury about other people in this way, and assume that if you have the power of being an ’employer’, that you can just employ your own prejudices with no consequences. This is a false notion.

      Why can’t that immigrant/muslim/roma be the one that needs to do the work and adapt to the situation which is already ok for everyone else?

      So, now you are lumping them together as a kind of laziness for dealing with the question that Roma and Muslims are already part of Finnish society and have been for centuries! Lazy, as usual.

      If you have a group of 10 people and 9 want’s to go to McDonalds and 1 wants pizza, wouldn’t it be just common sense to go to McDonalds?

      That’s an awful analogy on which to base employment practices. What on earth are you implying, that majority rule is more efficient? So in this scenario, minorities have no rights? This isn’t ‘efficiency’, this is a recipe for totalitarianism.

      You treat religion and culture like it was somekind of ultimate truth.

      What a strange thing to say.

      They are all INVENTED features. What harm would it cause if a roma would wear normal uniform? Nothing, zero.

      Clearly you assume your own ‘truth’ about the ‘invented’ nature of religion to be the ultimate truth, to which you expect me to bow down to. Religion did not invent the need to find meaning or purpose in life or to bring together a storehouse of knowledge in the form of moral fables. Clearly the purpose and function of these kinds of things go well beyond religion, and rather do constitute something quite natural, though this doesn’t preclude other forms of non-religious society from being equally functional. On the contrary, I do not see ‘ultimate truth’ as something that resides in religion, or in science for that matter, but rather in something that ultimately is beyond our comprehension or ability to describe. For the part of the world that we can describe, I am utterly fascinated, but I do not fool myself into thinking that it is by defition an ultimate truth, simply because that is what makes sense to us from our vantage point.

      What harm would it cause if a roma would wear normal uniform? Nothing, zero.

      A great deal of harm if the Roma has no choice, and that if they refuse, they will not be offered employment. Great harm, to their livelihood and their self-respect, to be treated in such a manner with only the pathetic justifications of a bigot. Still, I guess a Roma wouldn’t want to work for someone like you. Let’s hope that Finland has more enlightened employers.

  14. Farang

    Modifying it within reason to accommodate other natural differences such as ethnicity or religion is no great stretch and does not leave behind any victims.

    Really, you seriously say that religion is a NATURAL difference 😀 It’s not, it’s a choice that everyone can make. Like I can choose whether to wear blue or black jeans, it nothing natural.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Really, you seriously say that religion is a NATURAL difference

      Two points in reply. First, religion has been the basis of much discrimination, either one religion persecuting another or non-believers, or non-believers persecuting religious people. Freedom of religion as a key fundamental right goes back to Finland’s very inception as a nation state. I very much doubt that Finns will want to rewrite those laws any time soon. So, YES, there must and should be some accommodation for differences in identity, attitudes or behaviour resulting from religious belief. It’s clearly not a carte blanche, but no-one ever really has said it was.

      Second, religion almost certainly is natural. There are almost no non-religious societies prior to the modern scientific era. While science is a tremendous advance in terms of breaking superstition and providing for a verifiable body of knowledge, it is to a large extent counter-intuitive in the sense that it is reductionism, whereas the direction of human knowledge has historically being pointed towards articulating the ‘grand narrative’. I don’t mean to generalise here, but it’s useful.

      Religion, or ‘spiritual growth’ is a fundamentally similar activity to modern day business practice, which has clearly enriched society and which we would think of as a ‘natural’ function of human societies. Religion attempts to take something of ‘low value’, or in a ‘low state’, the human ‘animal’ or ‘sinner’, and to tame and develop that animal into something that is of high value. Value can be thought of in terms of ‘beneficial to society’. This has been the core activity of religion, in spite of periods of butchery and barbarism, typically by politicians looking to abuse or exploit religion, but sometimes by insane priests too.

      Religion, if considered as an attempt to construct a theory or narrative about the world, and as an activity directed towards ‘enriching’ the species and individuals can almost certainly be considered compeletely natural.

      The idea that religion amounts to nothing more than ‘choice’ is a bit like applying the modern day religion of ‘consumerism’, with its central tenate of the power of ‘choice’, back onto the old religion, and considering the ‘choices’ for an old religion as some kind of devilry or ignorance. This is known as ‘Deus Inversus’, or, the God of the old becomes the Devil of the new’, and is very typical of changeovers from one religious form to another. A blind worship of fashion or a blind faith in the purity of the market are no less religious sentiments than of old. Fashion symbols have taken over the task of religious symbols in denoting status, englightenment and power, with all the potential for true expression or ultimately self-repression.

      I think my point is supported by your choice to talk about ‘blue or black jeans’ as an example of ‘consumers’ choosing their religion.

  15. Farang

    Mark

    As a fundamental principle, you cannot oppose accommodation of variation within society on the issue of cost alone. Otherwise, you would oppose wheelchair ramps for the disabled and incubators for premature infants.

    Person in wheelchair can’t choose to walk without wheelchair. Person of religion still have free will to choose what outfit to wear. Totally uncomparable situations.

    So someone insisting on maintaining their identity is a troublemaker?

    Yes. That person has free will to choose whether or not to work there. So if the work requires certain outfit and the person is not willing to use that he/she can decide not to work there. It’s absurd to require someone else to make changes just because that one person has problems with the rules in the work place.

    What on earth are you implying, that majority rule is more efficient? So in this scenario, minorities have no rights? This isn’t ‘efficiency’, this is a recipe for totalitarianism.

    Your argument would make sense IF the person would be forced to work there. But he is not forced. He can choose whether or not to work there. So he has rights. Nobody is taking away his rights.

    Oh yes, you complain that “you are taking away his rights to choose what to wear” but at the same time you have no problems when the employer is losing his rights to choose the uniforms used in his company.

    A great deal of harm if the Roma has no choice, and that if they refuse, they will not be offered employment.

    What nonsense are you talking about? I asked what harm would it do to that roma, if he would wear the same uniform as anyone else. Why do you keep answering to questions I don’t even ask? What is the problem in answering this one:

    What harm would it cause to a roma, if he would wear the same outfit as everyone else?

    • Mark

      Farang

      Person in wheelchair can’t choose to walk without wheelchair. Person of religion still have free will to choose what outfit to wear. Totally uncomparable situations.

      Discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs and then having the cheek to tell them that they wouldn’t be discriminated against if they only ‘chose’ not to have those beliefs is arrogance and moral decrepitude of the highest order. Normal stuff from you then.

      Ironic, because you are constantly telling us that Finns are threatened in their national identity and culture by immigrants, but not telling Finns that its a matter of choice. But remember, there is a big difference between a Finn feeling ‘threatened’ in his identity by the mere sight of a visible foreigner and ACTUAL Finnish Muslims and Roma not being offered employment because of a sheer lack of willigness to accommodate even the smallest modifications of a dress code.

      Yes. That person has free will to choose whether or not to work there.

      You mean they are free to ditch their identity or traditions simply because you are a bigot? Doesn’t sound like the kind of freedom that is enshrined in the Finnish Constitution. You need to go back and do your homework, Farang. You still don’t understand the society you were born into. How can you call yourself a Finn when you don’t even understand the society that your fellow Finns have created for you?

      So if the work requires certain outfit and the person is not willing to use that he/she can decide not to work there

      I specifically ruled out this scenario. Pay attention at the back of the class, there!

      It’s absurd to require someone else to make changes just because that one person has problems with the rules in the work place.

      It’s absurd to consider changing the rules because a person has a problem with them? Well, perhaps it’s a good job that you are not in business and employing people, because with this attitude, I doubt you would be able to offer much of a service. Most grown-up adults recognise that making their workers happy and involving the workers in developing ‘the rules’ is what makes for a successful workplace. Your attitude is like that of a dictator…or a five-year old. You are not a very mature person, are you Farang? That’s the top and bottom of it. Arrested development.

      Your argument would make sense IF the person would be forced to work there.

      We were not talking about people being forced to work or wear a uniform. We were talking about reasons for refusing to give a job to a Roma person if it involved altering a non-essential dress code. Are you so thick that you cannot follow an argument for more than five seconds without drifting off into generalities and non-relevant absolutist principles?

      So he has rights. Nobody is taking away his rights.

      Again, you clearly don’t understand what it means to be given the right to live a life free of persecution due to religious beliefs or ethnicity. We are not talking about extreme beliefs here, either. We are talking things like wearing a beard, wearing varying degrees of veils, wearing traditional dress, wearing religious symbols. We are talking about ‘signs of individuality’, and how much they are or can be tolerated. We are talking specifically about non-essential dress codes. And we are talking about the kind of discrimination that you are justifying where ethnic and religious minorities that have been in Finland for centuries are routinely discriminated against.

      You have presented Roma people as ‘troublemakers’ simply for even daring to suggest that a dress code could be modified to allow them to stay true to their individual and ethnic identity. You know, compromise? I can very clearly see who the troublemaker would be, who is being inflexible, who doesn’t understand Finland’s Constitutional freedoms – it’s you Farang.

      I asked what harm would it do to that roma, if he would wear the same uniform as anyone else.

      But that is not a harm we need to protect individuals from. And that is why there is no law that says an individual must NOT take a job where he is asked to remove all visible signs of their cultural identity.

      The law we are discussing before you tried to change the subject protects individuals and groups from a different and rather more realistic harm, where an employer would specifically discriminate against a potential employee on the basis of religion or ethnicity.

      Saying that people are free to choose their religion is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card, Farang.

  16. Farang

    Discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs and then having the cheek to tell them that they wouldn’t be discriminated against if they only ‘chose’ not to have those beliefs is arrogance and moral decrepitude of the highest order. Normal stuff from you then.

    If person refuses to treat someone differently than others, it is not discrimination. That is equality. Why do you still keep on insisting that some people deserves to be treated differently but some others don’t? All I can see is racism against Finns from you.

    But that is not a harm we need to protect individuals from. And that is why there is no law that says an individual must NOT take a job where he is asked to remove all visible signs of their cultural identity.
    The law we are discussing before you tried to change the subject protects individuals and groups from a different and rather more realistic harm, where an employer would specifically discriminate against a potential employee on the basis of religion or ethnicity.

    You still refused to answer, because you don’t want to admit the truth. Truth is, it would cause no harm to that roma/muslim to wear same uniform as others.

    You are just using their culture/religion as an excuse to let them dictate how everyone else should behave.

    You still don’t understand that it’s always better for 1 person to adapt to the group of 99 people, than those 99 people to adapt to that one person.

    Most grown-up adults recognise that making their workers happy and involving the workers in developing ‘the rules’ is what makes for a successful workplace. Your attitude is like that of a dictator…or a five-year old.

    Now tell me, which part here you don’t understand:

    a: that roma/muslim applying for the job is NOT an employee. He is not staff. So why would he be involved in setting the rules at that work place?

    b: If every single employer is happy with the current rules, why would one single person who wants to join that work place be allowed to dictate new rules there that everyone else must obey?

    If person chooses to believe in something that then places artificial restrictions to his life, then it is that person himself who should suffer from those restrictions, not everyone else.

    What do you think of this: There is this big company which several times a year organizes a party, where every people are served free pork. Do you consider this racists? Would you like to force this complany to alter their menu so that muslims could join also? Why?

    • Mark

      If person refuses to treat someone differently than others, it is not discrimination. That is equality. Why do you still keep on insisting that some people deserves to be treated differently but some others don’t? All I can see is racism against Finns from you.

      That’s because you are too thick and cannot really understand the arguments that are being made to you, even though they have been spelt out numerous ways now. It is discrimination if you put petty and arbitary barriers in the way of employing minorities.

      Trying to suggest that everyone has to fit inside the same uniform is plainly false, and then trying to suggest that this is also ‘equality’ is further insulting people’s intelligence, Farang. But then you don’t have the intelligence to understand that. You have not once responded to the issue of gender and body size as natural variations that employers already have to take into account. Using your criteria all thin people would have to go on a weight-gain regime and all larger people would have to go on a diet so that everyone can fit inside the same uniform!

      So where is the Racism against Finns? You throw these silly accusations around like confetti when you have already demonstrated to us that you do not understand Finland’s laws on discrimination. And now you are trying to suggest this is racism against Finns? You are having a larf!

      You still refused to answer, because you don’t want to admit the truth. Truth is, it would cause no harm to that roma/muslim to wear same uniform as others.

      Again, too thick to even comprehend a proper response to your so-called question. You changed the subject. The law protects against discrimination in employment. You are trying to say that IF people give in to the discrimination and deny themselves their constitutional rights, then there is no problem for them. Wow. So fucking smart, you are … not!

      You still don’t understand that it’s always better for 1 person to adapt to the group of 99 people, than those 99 people to adapt to that one person.

      This isn’t an argument – it’s a vague allusion to the power of the majority. A very tiny minority of infants are born preterm, does that mean we should not use resources to protect their right to life?

      a: that roma/muslim applying for the job is NOT an employee. He is not staff. So why would he be involved in setting the rules at that work place?

      You take your justifications to even more extreme levels. Now you are saying that you don’t have to accommodate Muslims or Roma simply because you don’t have any of these employees because you’ve already refused to give them employment. And you offer this as a justification for your discrimination in the first place. tut tut.

      b: If every single employer is happy with the current rules, why would one single person who wants to join that work place be allowed to dictate new rules there that everyone else must obey?

      Well, I think you’ll find that not every single employee would be happy if they knew those ‘rules’ resulted in discrimination against people on the basis of ethnicity or religion. What is this obsession with rules and obedience? With you, there is no room for discussion, no compromise, and not even simple common sense.

      You are a fucking dinosaur, Farang. You are the laughing stock of this blog! And I’m sure many people tune in daily to see you get your arse handed to you on a plate, daily!

  17. Farang

    Mark

    That’s because you are too thick and cannot really understand the arguments that are being made to you, even though they have been spelt out numerous ways now. It is discrimination if you put petty and arbitary barriers in the way of employing minorities.

    No, your argument is quite clear. You are saying that people needs to be treated differently BECAUSE of their religion.

    • Mark

      Farang

      No, your argument is quite clear. You are saying that people needs to be treated differently BECAUSE of their religion.

      Let’s look at a practical example and a timeline here and try to fit this ‘treat people different’ into some kind of realistic context.

      1) Employer writes the rules on dress code in such a way that it naturally excludes minorities, whether ethnic or religious, thus creating a situation of inequality.
      2) Employer justifies this exclusion by suggesting that ALL employers have to wear it, and that making any exceptions for minorities is itself inequality.
      3) Employer makes a uniform that already takes account of other normal and natural variations, such as gender and body size, and yet does not demand that ALL employers fit one sized uniform or that making larger uniforms would be ‘treating people differently’.

      Thus, it’s clear to see that such an argument is unsustainable. It is neither justified nor consistently applied. And the fact that rules are written in a way that excludes minorities is the absolute starting point for the discrimination and inequality.

      Farang, your concept of equality is childishly inadequate.

  18. Farang

    Mark

    Trying to suggest that everyone has to fit inside the same uniform is plainly false, and then trying to suggest that this is also ‘equality’ is further insulting people’s intelligence, Farang.

    As long as workplace where everyone are Finns, you have no problem if they all are fitted in same uniforms. But immediately when a muslim or roma joins that group, it becomes an issue. This really shows where you stand against Finns.

    You have not once responded to the issue of gender and body size as natural variations that employers already have to take into account.

    Isn’t that a bit desperate? You really claim that identical uniforms with size 40 and 50 are already so different that it doesn’t matter if those are modified more? People’s size are different due to NATURAL reasons. The uniform is still the same, even if the size differs.

    Your discussion tactics are quite interesting. You keep asking totally irrelevant questions and then when you run out of arguments, you desperately try to use that “hey, you didn’t answer my question” card 🙂

    So where is the Racism against Finns? You throw these silly accusations around like confetti when you have already demonstrated to us that you do not understand Finland’s laws on discrimination. And now you are trying to suggest this is racism against Finns? You are having a larf!

    Racism is there that you don’t respect anything that might be important to Finns. If there are some “rule” by a Finn, which contradicst with a “rule” by some minority group, your stance is always that minority rule must override the rule of natives. That is pure racism against natives.

    You don’t consider a bit the feelings of the Finns. What is some company owner put her soul into her company and designing an outfit which represents her company. That is very important to her. But you are immediately forcing her to throw that away because muslims feelings are so much important than everyone else’s

    There, I hope you can see the racism now yourself.

    Again, too thick to even comprehend a proper response to your so-called question. You changed the subject. The law protects against discrimination in employment. You are trying to say that IF people give in to the discrimination and deny themselves their constitutional rights, then there is no problem for them. Wow. So fucking smart, you are … not!

    This just proves that you don’t understand the word discrimination. My question is totally relevant.

    In this case the candidate is not discriminated because of religion or culture. Candidate is not hired if he refuses to follow the rules. That has nothing to do with discrimination.

    Another example: A candidate is told that in this work place you need to be present every morning at 7.00. Candidate refuses and says he likes to wake up at 9.00.

    Now, if this person is not hired, do you consider it discrimination? Why not? Why are you now not demanding that employer should reschedule the working hours so that it would suit this one who likes to wake up later?

    Would it change your opinion if this candidate would say that it is against his religion to work before 9.00 in the morning?

    Well, I think you’ll find that not every single employee would be happy if they knew those ‘rules’ resulted in discrimination against people on the basis of ethnicity or religion. What is this obsession with rules and obedience? There is no room for discussion, compromise is even simple common sense. You are fucking dinosaur, Farang.

    Want to bet? If company owner holds a staff meeting and asks the employees: “Hey, would you like to have a new religious person to work here? It would require all of you to change your clothing to something else”. I would bet that majority of the employees would say no. And that is simply because we don’t want outsiders to come and dictate how we should change our behaviour.

    I have a living world example. In local hospital there was a muslim nurse hired. For hygien reasons every nurse have to wear and outfit that keeps their arms visible. But this one muslim is allowed to wear long sleeves.

    This has caused that most of the employees are now hostile towards this muslim, because she gets different treatment and is allowed to do something that others are not. Why does religon go over hygiene/safety?

    • Mark

      Farang

      As long as workplace where everyone are Finns, you have no problem if they all are fitted in same uniforms. But immediately when a muslim or roma joins that group, it becomes an issue. This really shows where you stand against Finns.

      This is just plain prejudice. I do not separate people into ‘Finns vs. Muslims/Roma’. There are Finns who are also Roma or Muslims. This is not an issue of the Finns vs the outsiders. The fact that you are trying to make it so only reveals your obvious prejudice.

      Isn’t that a bit desperate? You really claim that identical uniforms with size 40 and 50 are already so different that it doesn’t matter if those are modified more?

      No. Not desparate. You are the one seeking to convince us that an employer uses one and only one uniform for all the staff. Clearly this is false. And yes, the difference between a size 40 and a size 50 is significant, in that each size has to be designed separately. Likewise uniforms for men and for women.

      The uniform is still the same, even if the size differs.

      Certainly not true. Each size has to be designed and manufactured separetely. In the case of men and women, the uniform can be extremely different. Or haven’t you noticed? Fuck, your stupidity just keeps rolling along…. lol. I mean, are you on heroin or what, because you seem to be out of touch/on another planet?

      Racism is there that you don’t respect anything that might be important to Finns. If there are some “rule” by a Finn, which contradicst with a “rule” by some minority group, your stance is always that minority rule must override the rule of natives. That is pure racism against natives.

      Again, you are the one to put people into these boxes of Finns and non-Finns. I haven’t done that. I don’t think it’s relevant that the employer is a Finn. And Muslims and Roma can be native of Finland too, a fact you ignore over and over.

      your stance is always that minority rule must override the rule of natives.

      Well, that is not a given. However, if the rule of ‘the natives’ is one that systematically discriminates against the minority, then I will oppose it every time, correct!

      You don’t consider a bit the feelings of the Finns. What is some company owner put her soul into her company and designing an outfit which represents her company. That is very important to her. But you are immediately forcing her to throw that away because muslims feelings are so much important than everyone else’s

      Don’t give me that sentimental crap. You are quite happy to refuse a job to a Roma for being a ‘troublemaker’ with no thought to the consequences, and now you want me to lose sleep over the employer’s ‘soul-filled’ efforts to produce a uniform, such that she cannot possibly contemplate modifying it to actually fit her employees? Get over yourself. I have owned a business and had employees, Farang, and I’ll tell you first hand that the key thing is the company logo, colours and general tone of the branding. It is not about controlling every item of clothing or about trying to drown out the individuality of the workers. Seems like you haven’t a fucking clue what you are talking about, as usual.

      Candidate is not hired if he refuses to follow the rules. That has nothing to do with discrimination.

      Once again too thick to follow even simple logic. If the rules already written themselves discrimate against the candidate on the basis of their religion or ethnicity, then it is not a question of ‘refusing to follow the rules’.

      Imagine, an employer sets a rule ‘All employees must be white’. So, when the black candidate is refused employment because he ‘refuses to follow the rule of being white’, he is not being discriminated against, he’s simply refusing to follow the rules?

      Farang, I’m not sure I have ever met someone as stubborn and so obviously thick, ignorant and bigoted in all my life. The sad part is I know that there are lazy bastards out there that will go ‘hear, hear’ to everything you say and imagine that somehow you are ‘the smart one’! So, keep playing to your own gallery, I’m sure you’ll get plenty of cheers. You live off the successes and glory of other Finns who have created this fantastic society in Finland and yet you work relentlessly to dismantle it.

      Would it change your opinion if this candidate would say that it is against his religion to work before 9.00 in the morning?

      Well, this is relevant for another form of discrimation, against those with young families who often have to deliver their children to daycare in the morning and might not be able to attend the workplace before 9.00. But listen, Farang, every single example you have given has veered off into the realm of fantasy and the fantastic, which really advances us not one bit. No religion on earth that I know of stipulates a start time for an employee, although some do have sabbath days. It’s already been said that you have to decide these issues case by case, and that people have to be sensible. Your inventions are nothing like realistic representations of religious beliefs or any accommodations that we might make for them.

      Now, if this person is not hired, do you consider it discrimination? Why not? Why are you now not demanding that employer should reschedule the working hours so that it would suit this one who likes to wake up later?

      Farang. Employers already reschedule in many positions, giving employees the choice of flexitime, so that can start early or late, within reason. Clearly, it is within the rights of the employer to set the work times, within reason. Society as a whole has been very critical of employers who fail to give flexibility to workers with other commitments. It’s very telling that the reason you give for this ‘demand’ of the employee is laziness. In reality, the demand is made for very much more practical reasons, such as taking care of babies. I guess you haven’t got any because you are a sad fuck without a girlfriend, let alone babies. Correct me if I’m wrong.

      I would bet that majority of the employees would say no. And that is simply because we don’t want outsiders to come and dictate how we should change our behaviour.

      Talk about a loaded question. Again, it’s unrealistic. Modifying an existing uniform OR DRESS CODE, would probably not involve changing anyone else’s uniform. Outsiders and insiders, that’s about the root of your thinking. Except that it reveals you to be a small minded bigot.

      This has caused that most of the employees are now hostile towards this muslim, because she gets different treatment and is allowed to do something that others are not. Why does religon go over hygiene/safety?

      Oh, you so hate Muslims, don’t you. And you blame them for your hostility, when it’s you that is going out of your way to piss all over their basic rights. Back to your ‘different treatment’ mantra, I notice. And once again, you fail to understand that we are NOT talking about uniforms that are essential to the work, such as those to protect hygiene or safety. I’ve spelt that out several times, and the fact you continually ignore it shows you are either high, drunk, stupid, insane, disturbed or all of the above.

  19. Farang

    1) Employer writes the rules on dress code in such a way that it naturally excludes minorities, whether ethnic or religious, thus creating a situation of inequality.

    How can employer be aware of all the restrictions that some religious groups may have? What if the first time he ever hears about such artificial restriction is the interview with the candidate?

    You can’t demand that every person in the world would need to know the details of every single religion in the world. It’s not their business, they don’t need to now. It’s the religious people’s problem to try to live with those artificial restrictions they willingly put theirselves under.

    Now tell me: Why am I not allowed to start a religion which has a rule that I am only allowed to eat filet and caviar. Then with your logic when my kids go to school, the schools would have to serve them filet and caviar on lunch.

    If you don’t approve this, then it once again proves your racism. You only approve some religions but not all.

    • Mark

      Farang

      How can employer be aware of all the restrictions that some religious groups may have? What if the first time he ever hears about such artificial restriction is the interview with the candidate?

      Wow – a good and sensible question. Clearly an employer may not be aware. But once they do become aware, then clearly they cannot continue to maintain the same dress code.

      You can’t demand that every person in the world would need to know the details of every single religion in the world.

      Well that’s just a plain stupid comment. As usual, you seem to be totally unaware of the plasticity of the human brain. An employer who has any worth will want to take the opinions of his employers into account. It is also quite likely that his employers are actually paid to give their knowledge to the employer and for the employer to act on it. So the idea that an employer somehow has their feet stuck in concrete over an issue like this and cannot either canvass or respond to his employees is just farcical. What kind of world do you live in, Farang?

      It’s the religious people’s problem to try to live with those artificial restrictions they willingly put theirselves under.

      Well, actually, there is a duty of care on employers to respect their employees rights. If an employer is not aware of even the basic fundamental human rights of their employees, then one does wonder how this employer ever managed to navigate through the complex legal maze of setting up a company, let alone bring a product or service to market!

      Now tell me: Why am I not allowed to start a religion which has a rule that I am only allowed to eat filet and caviar.

      Are you asking the employer to pay for your caviar and filet? I think most people would reject that as farcical. However, it is not unusual for employers to already provide gluten- and lactose- free lunch menus. It’s called taking care of your staff. I’m pretty sure that if you convinced a significant number of your fellow Finns on the benefits of a strict diet of filet and caviar that employers would likewise adjust.

      However, you are still confusing the issues. If an employer refused you a job on the basis of your religious beliefs, then they would be breaking the law. This has nothing to do with how much it costs to keep your caviar habit, but the simple act of protecting people from religious persecution. A religion is an established social institution, and I don’t think most people would reasonably accept that you have created a religion just because you stand up and say so. As it is, most religious direction of diet involves prohibition, and not command, which for an employer is pretty straightforward.

      If you don’t approve this, then it once again proves your racism. You only approve some religions but not all.

      Gosh, you are pleased with yourself, aren’t you. This is what you do when you think you’ve come up with an ingenious defence of your stupidity. You immediately claim it to be a proof, and not only that, but a proof of someone else’s ‘racism’. Once again, you show yourself to be a twerp and an idiot who clearly does not know the meaning of the word ‘racism’.

      Once again, claiming to have invented a religion does not count as a religion, in the same way stating that you have invented a new Constitution for Finland doesn’t make it so. Creating a scenario where that would be the case really does show an element of insanity or great stupidity in your. I’m not sure which it is.

  20. Farang

    Wow – a good and sensible question. Clearly an employer may not be aware. But once they do become aware, then clearly they cannot continue to maintain the same dress code.

    Why?

    If employer comes aware of religion X in some part of the world, would he need to take that into account just in case that maybe some day one representative of that religion decides to apply for a job?

    Well, actually, there is a duty of care on employers to respect their employees rights. If an employer is not aware of even the basic fundamental human rights of their employees, then one does wonder how this employer ever managed to navigate through the complex legal maze of setting up a company, let alone bring a product or service to market!

    You still don’t get it, do you? As long as this kind of obligations are presented for the employer, it is just easier for the employer to not hire any persons who belong to these groups having special restrictions. And as result, these obligations makes it more difficult for people in these groups to get jobs.

    But you rather insist on enforcing these rules, even if it actually harms the people in these special groups.

    Are you asking the employer to pay for your caviar and filet? I think most people would reject that as farcical. However, it is not unusual for employers to already provide gluten- and lactose- free lunch menus.

    Here shows your dishonesty again. I specifically used that diet example with pupils in school. Since pupils are entitled to free lunch therefore pupils don’t have to pay for their meal. That’s why I asked if you consider that school/city (whoever actually pays for the food) should provide these pupils the meal that is required by their religion?

    You intentionally left the school-part out, so you could use that example in a way it was not meant. In work places the employer has no oblication to provide lunch, so therefore this example doesn’t work in that environment.

    But it was similar case as what we are dealing here, therefore I’d like to hear your opinion, so I can see whether you have double standards.

    Once again, claiming to have invented a religion does not count as a religion

    Why? Why would my religion be any less a religion than for example Christianity or Islam? They are similarly invented religions by one person. Why would it matter when they were invented? Are you saying that people living today are not allowed to create religions? On people who lived very very long time ago were allowed to create religions?

    Or are you actually claiming that those religions (Islam, Christianity, etc) are not invented by people?

    • Mark

      Farang

      If employer comes aware of religion X in some part of the world, would he need to take that into account just in case that maybe some day one representative of that religion decides to apply for a job?

      No. An employer would be expected to take account of the local demographic. We are talking in varying degrees probably Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Buddhists, accepting too that there is great variation even within the major religions. But how much of that is relevant to a dress code is another matter. The other issue is ethnic identity and traditional dress. Again, local demographics apply. If the demographic changes, the dress code should change too.

      No-one is suggesting that every employer is an expert on obscure religions and ethnic practices. But when an issue arises, society expects employers to treat employees respectfully and not to discriminate on the grounds of religion or ethnicity. This gives employers varying degrees of freedom, as it does employees, and each case has to be dealt with on its own, and with common sense. You are deliberately inventing scenarios that defy common sense.

      it is just easier for the employer to not hire any persons who belong to these groups

      While that might be true, it’s not a valid argument, for all sorts of reasons. The same argument could be applied to people who are blind, women (think pregnancy), the old (retirement coming up and all that), sexuality (think about those poor homophobes ‘forced’ to work with queers!), workers with families etc. There are all sorts of individual needs and circumstances that go with the variation of the workforce that can potentially add costs or comlexity to a businesses employment practices. But society as a whole has demanded that none of these situations are legitimate reasons not to give someone a job! Now how well that works in practice is another matter. But society recognises this as harmful to society and to individuals. Why can’t you recognise this simple fact?

      Why? Why would my religion be any less a religion than for example Christianity or Islam?

      Surely you can answer your own question here? A religion is a social entity. The Constitution does not say ‘you cannot ever go against another person’s religious feelings or ideas’. It says you cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion or ethnicity. These are largely recognised social insitutions and identities. I sympathise if you have a religous belief that is not generally recognised that makes your everyday functioning in the existing world difficult and I do think that you deserve the right to work.

      I think you can reasonably ask people to respect other people’s religious beliefs, if that means for example having more than just ‘pork’ on the menu or allowing women to wear a veil or a man to wear a beard. I don’t think you can reasonable ask people to give you a million euro just because your invented religion says that you must be given cash offerings. Common sense, Farang. Have you ever heard of it?

      Or are you actually claiming that those religions (Islam, Christianity, etc) are not invented by people?

      That really is irrelevant. If you want to argue about the truth or not of religious ideas, we can do it all day, Farang. But if you are suggesting that that somehow allows us also to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, then you are wrong. It is harmful to society. That’s it in plain and simple terms. If you don’t understand that, then try learning a bit more about the world you were born into.

  21. Farang

    And yes, the difference between a size 40 and a size 50 is significant, in that each size has to be designed separately. Likewise uniforms for men and for women.

    It’s not about the design, it’s about employees appear.

  22. Farang

    Fuck, your stupidity just keeps rolling along…. lol.

    Why do you need to use that kind of abusive language? Why can’t you discuss with good manners without using f-words, etc? If doesn’t make your arguments any heavier.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Why do you need to use that kind of abusive language? Why can’t you discuss with good manners without using f-words, etc? If doesn’t make your arguments any heavier.

      No it doesn’t. But it does expresses my disgust and frustration. And while we are talking about good manners, it’s good manners to represent the views of your opponent accurately and pay attention to the arguments being made against you.

  23. Farang

    Imagine, an employer sets a rule ‘All employees must be white’. So, when the black candidate is refused employment because he ‘refuses to follow the rule of being white’, he is not being discriminated against, he’s simply refusing to follow the rules?

    Oh, very good example 🙂 That is racist and we all know it.

    There was actually couple of years ago an job ad in the official pages http://www.mol.fi where they wanted to hire white person. I think that employer got some sanctions 🙂

    I guess you haven’t got any because you are a sad fuck without a girlfriend, let alone babies. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Once again nice personal attack, instead of just argumenting the issues on debate.

    You are 50% correct, I don’t have children 🙂

    Modifying an existing uniform OR DRESS CODE, would probably not involve changing anyone else’s uniform. Outsiders and insiders, that’s about the root of your thinking. Except that it reveals you to be a small minded bigot.

    Once again you dodge the fact that I’ve told several times. The idea of the uniform is that employees have same appearance regarding outfit. If one is different, it basically loses it’s whole purpose

    Oh, you so hate Muslims, don’t you. And you blame them for your hostility, when it’s you that is going out of your way to piss all over their basic rights.

    MY hostility??? I haven’t been hostile against anyone. I told you what happened in real work place. It was those employees there who started to act hostile against that one muslim because she was treated differently.

    And you didn’t answer the question: Is it OK for you that hygiene/safety rules can be broken because of religion?

    • Mark

      Once again you dodge the fact that I’ve told several times. The idea of the uniform is that employees have same appearance regarding outfit. If one is different, it basically loses it’s whole purpose

      Round and round the houses we go. And I have pointed out that all existing uniforms already come with variation. The idea that everyone must look exactly the same is a false starting point.

      If one is different, it basically loses it’s whole purpose

      Hardly.

      MY hostility??? I haven’t been hostile against anyone.

      Describing Roma as troublemakers for wanting to wear their traditional dress is hostile. Describing Roma and Muslims as ‘outsiders’ in Finland is hostile.

      And you didn’t answer the question: Is it OK for you that hygiene/safety rules can be broken because of religion?

      You clearly haven’t been paying attention.

  24. Farang

    No it doesn’t. But it does expresses my disgust and frustration. And while we are talking about good manners, it’s good manners to represent the views of your opponent accurately and pay attention to the arguments being made against you.

    I do understand your view even if you don’t use that kind of language. So it’s unnecessary.

    And I do acknowledge your arguments, I just disagree with most of them. Just like you disagree with me.

    • Mark

      No you do not acknowledge them. You distort them and misrepresent them. And when it happens over and over, even after I have asked you not to do it, I find that extremely fucking annoying.

  25. Farang

    No you do not acknowledge them. You distort them and misrepresent them. And when it happens over and over, even after I have asked you not to do it, I find that extremely fucking annoying.

    That is not true. You are just so concentrating on your certain opinion that you don’t even understand the effects of that opinion. And what I do is that I point out those failures of yours. For example when you suggest that everyone in Finland should be treated same way, you don’t understand that it same time means that anyone in the world could just come here and start living on our expense. And this means that you don’t fully understand what you want.

    No. An employer would be expected to take account of the local demographic. We are talking in varying degrees probably Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Buddhists, accepting too that there is great variation even within the major religions.

    Do you understand what the freedom of religion means? It means that everyone is entitled to practice what ever religion they want. And it also means that nobody can be forced to practice any religion.

    So, it means that a muslim can’t be forced to participate in christmas plays. It means that atheist can’t be forced to participate in christmas plays. It should also mean (to a person with common sense) that employer can’t be forced to set up a dress code to please certain religion.

    You still fail to understand the fundamental issue that while everyone is free to practice their religion, they also should have the responsibility to bear the consequences of the restrictions that this religions put on them.

    In this whole dress code issue, the employer is not the problem, the dress code is not the problem. The religion is the problem. It’s the fault of that religion that this person can not wear the same outfit as anyone else. So as a conclusion: Why should anyone else be forced to suffer from that religion, than the religious person himself? It’s purely trying to transfer own problems as everyone else’s problems.

    • Mark

      Farang

      If only you were true to your word. I will believe you understand my points when you accurately paraphrase them. So far, every time you go to tell me what I’m supposed to think, you are way wide of the mark. When i correct you, you ignore it and carry on having a conversion with this imaginary point of view. I understand, the argument you put in my mouth is the one you think you know how to argue with. For you to properly process the arguments i make to you would probably require you to radically realign some key assumptions. I’m not surprised therefore that the arguments seem to pass over your head.

  26. Farang

    Mark

    Your problem is that you are fixed in one certain thing and then you disregard everything else arounds it and you defend your opinion till last breath even if I have pointed out how absurd it is.

    Like in this discussion you are just fixed to the point that person with cultural or religious features must have rights to utilize that feature everytime everyhere no matter what. Even when it means violations of some other people’s rights.

    And that is point where you go wrong. You totally ignore everyone else’s rights and you raise cultural and religious features above all. You don’t even want to discuss the possibility that maybe the religious person would have to make compromises aswell? You are eagerly demanding everyone else to make compromises and adapt to minorities but you don’t require that from the minority.

    That is double standards, a school book example.

    • Mark

      Farang

      Your problem is that you are fixed in one certain thing and then you disregard everything else arounds it and you defend your opinion till last breath even if I have pointed out how absurd it is.

      I’m not surprised that you see it this way. For the record, none of my opinions are fixed. I’ve been wrong too many times in my life about different things to assume that I have some innate ability to see things as they are. I recognise that I have to work to understand things. I do not disregard anything. Invariably, it is the exception to a rule that is the most important element in bringing greater understanding. I will not defend a position to the last breath. That would be an incredible waste of time and resources. However, I will not let an obvious untruth be written on this blog without a reply. This issue is too important to let trolls and idiots have free reign on this topic. You might think the arguments are absurd, but you certainly have not managed to ‘point it out’. Like I said before, when you paraphrase my opinions, you seem to get it wrong a hell of a lot of the time.

      Like in this discussion you are just fixed to the point that person with cultural or religious features must have rights to utilize that feature everytime everyhere no matter what.

      And as an example of mispresenting my opinion, this is pretty darn perfect. Nowhere have I set out such a fixed and absolute position in this argument. Not only that, but you got so fixated on presenting my position as ‘fixed’ that you lapsed into utter vagueness. A person with cultural or religious features must have the right to use those features at all times and in all places? I have not said this. In fact, I’ve actually contradicted this proposition in very specific words. I told you that I accept there are certain occupations where various traditional or religious garments would be impractical. And I’ve repeated this to you several times, making a very strong point about it, and yet you STILL ignore it. It’s really hard to give you any respect or credibility if you persist in lying about what I actually think or what I actually try to argue with you about. You are only wasting your own time. I certainly won’t let you get away with it on this blog.

      Even when it means violations of some other people’s rights.

      So far you have not pointed out any violations of anyone else’s rights. You vaguely refer to other people having to wear a ‘modified’ uniform, but haven’t given a concrete example of how that would be the case. You vaguely refer to people having the ‘right’ to wear the same uniform, but I don’t recall any such right written into the Constitution or any legislation in Finland. As it is, people clearly do not wear ‘the same uniform’. A dress code typically allows for all sorts of variation. Your concept of people’s right to be ‘treated the same’ clearly overlooks the rights of minorities to have equal access to the workplace, and this IS a right that is written into the Constitution.

      You totally ignore everyone else’s rights and you raise cultural and religious features above all.

      Until you can explain which of other people’s rights are being violated, and remember, we are talking about legal rights here, not the notion that someone has to pay for something or that someone is receiving a different treatment because someone else has a slightly different uniform, then you cannot say that I am ignoring other people’s rights. The key thing here is that you have said you would discriminate against a minority in a way that is clearly illegal. Not only that, but you clearly refuse to understand why it is illegal in the first place. It’s not simply that you don’t agree, you are too thick or stubborn to actually get your head around the law or even the need for it. You harp on instead about the inconvenience to the employer and some vague and stupid notion that it would actually be discriminating against other employees.

      You don’t even want to discuss the possibility that maybe the religious person would have to make compromises aswell? That is double standards, a school book example.

      More lies. I have stated very specifically that there should be compromise and that it should be a case by case discussion between the employer and employee, as this is the only sensible option.

      Asking how essential a dress code is to the nature of the job is specifically protecting the realistic needs of employers, which entails an understandable compromise from those who would wish to wear traditional costume or follow religious codes. But this is certainly not true or necessary of all situations. Actually deciding not to employ someone from a minority simply for fear of having to accommodate some variation or being told in interview about their desire to follow religious or ethnic codes is plain old discrimination. And where it’s non-essentila to the job, it’s illegal. No amount of squirming or dishonest representations of arguments changes this, Farang.

    • JusticeDemon

      Farang

      Your problem is that you are fixed in one certain thing and then you disregard everything else arounds it and you defend your opinion till last breath even if I have pointed out how absurd it is.

      You are talking about yourself, Farang.

Leave a Reply