Why are Finland’s politicians still so silent?

by , under Enrique

By Enrique Tessieri

Have you heard anything from any government official never mind a politician being outraged by what happened in Oulu after Perussuomalaiset (PS) councilman Tommi Rautio’s  infamous suggestion to decorate a cold-blooded killer? It took thirteen days for Rautio to finally get sacked from the PS. Few appear to be moved by the deaths, at least publicly. 

Taking into account that in a span of about three weeks there were three deaths involving people with immigrant backgrounds, not even Interior Minister Päivi Rässänen offered a word of sympathy for the Somali and immigrant community about the tragedy.

While it is wrong to state that the killings didn’t impact Finns, the media acted rapidly in reporting the event and condemning it on editorials.

The silence of our government and our politicians to such violence offers a good example why racism and prejudice roam freely. Does a Finnish Breivik have to appear and spread terror in our  society before we wake up alas to the threat that racism and xenophobia pose?

Let’s hope not.

  1. Peter of Finland

    You shouldn’t expect anythind from Räsänen. Some of her commensts could easily be confused with the rhetoric employed by Soini.

    It is sad that the Minister resposible for immigration has not reached out to the migrant community who are deeply traumatized by the events that have taken place in the past month or so.

    Ms. Räsänen your lack of action embarrasses your office! Shame on you.

    • Migrant Tales

      Good comment, Peter. It is shameful. But what could you expect from Räsänen if the PS like her stance on immigration policy.

  2. Peter of Finland

    Well, one could express remorse at such violent acts taking place and stress to the immigrant community that the government does not condone such actions. In this case, Ms. Räsänen’s silence is deafening!

    One does not need to support immigration to condemn such acts. By ignoring those affected, a clear message is sent out; a message that declares ‘you are not part of us and we therefore do not need to take head of your concerns’. Such narrow thinking about the national community will only feed the already deeply entrenched ‘Us vs. Them’ ideology held by certain elements and divide our society further.

    As a member of the Kristillisdemokraatit party and, one would assume, a Christian, I find Ms. Räsänen’s lack of action unChristian.

    The global church often uses the addage “What Would Jesus Do?” Frankly speaking, I am highly doubtful that he would ignore an already marginal group and their concerns. 😉

  3. D4R

    Peter is right, dont expect non from räsänen. The reason why räsänen and other politician are quiet is cause of losing votes and position. P.S HAS STRONG POSITION IN THIS COUNTRY and in the goverment. Some of them are racist and other poltician will not do anything about it, even the ones who’re responsible of immigration policy. It’s a shame that Finland takes in immigrants but will not grant protection to them untill they’re harmed.

  4. Elven archer

    “It took thirteen days for Rautio to finally get sacked from the PS.”

    What else do you need? Why should known politicians comment on every possible stupid thing from some neverheard from almost nowhere said on Facebook? “I comdemn this obviously stupid comment as… stupid! Now the world is a way better place!”

    You seem to have very little faith to people to make their own minds?

    I think you are really saying that why didn’t they use it as a political weapon against The Finns party? Why didn’t they give labels to the party as you so often do?

    And what about 13 days? Don’t you believe that everyone has a right to get a fair hearing? If that takes 13 days, so be it. I prefer people to get heard to judgment right on the spot without a change to explain their actions. I believe that is human and that is right.

    • Migrant Tales

      Hi Elven archer and welcome to Migrant Tales.

      Do you think the comment by Tommi Rautio was just “stupid?” I think it was outrageous, considering that it came from a European politician’s mouth in 2012.

      Maybe a so-called dumb comment was by PS MP Teuvo Hakkarainen about his dirty underwear.

      In some countries like England if a politician made such a statement as Rautio he’d get sacked immediately.

  5. Elven archer

    Hi!

    Yes, I think it was just stupid. It was so stupid that who cares. I believe it is one’s right to say also stupid things. I think saying stupid things can be a real favor to everyone like in this case. Now everybody knows the guy and what he stands for. We wouldn’t if some people who push forward legislation for harsher punishments for wrong opinions got what they wanted. I’m referring to those people who hysterically think everything is “hate speech”.

    Also it’s very important that people can say what they think without fearing the consequences so that they don’t have to bury their feelings deep inside until they explode or worse, somebody else literally does. These kind of attitudes need to be allowed to say aloud so they can be argued against. It’s a punishment enough to be considered stupid in public opinion for saying incredibly stupid things and being kicked out of the party (which is a fair consequence because of course a party has a right to demand certain values from it’s members). There’s no need to dwell upon that on national level. He was just some local small time politician on Facebook, where it is not uncommon to say stupid things.

    Without freedom of speech these kinds of attitudes just stay under the surface but obviously they don’t go away by themselves. In this case it was so stupid that nobody needed to shoot the comment down. People can think with their own brains.

    England is not a country which still believes in human rights. It is plagued with political correctness. Like I said, everybody deserves to be heard before passing judgments. Everybody has to have a voice. It is a basic human right. It is a basis of any decent democracy, but I guess Britain is nowadays a democrazy? Sacking someone without first hearing them out is just wrong and a sure way to violate someone’s rights sooner or later.

    England has lost it’s way. It’s just full of multicultural madness like reporting little kids to school boards as racists because one asked if his mate was from Africa because he was brown skinned. That it the kind of society based on judging people immediately. Innocent question leads to immediate action. While I don’t think this politician with too many medals on his hands was just saying innocent things, it just shows how important it is to let people defend themselves before any actions are taken against them. Doing otherwise is just bloodjust, with those scary torches and other sh*it.

    • Migrant Tales

      So, Elven archer, you do not see anything wrong with what Tommi Rautio said? Just venting steam? Hmmm. Maybe that is easy for you to say because you are white and not a minority in England. You don’t have a problem with a British Rautio if he were to appear.

      If you think England is full of “multicultural madness” what would you prescribe? What is the solution?

  6. Elven archer

    Oh, right. I forgot. I am a very small part of this movement which obviously you are not very fond of. I’m talking about these people who have critical views of the immigration policies in Europe today. And by saying a part I mean I discuss a lot about the matter in Internet and read very much about the discussion of the subject. So I know something about their or our, take your pick, attitudes. They are almost unanimous that the guy was talking some very stupid things. Majority of them think that kicking him out of The Finns party was a right thing to do. So I really don’t see the big need for the major politicians to condemn the comment when basically everybody is already against the stupid comment, even the multiculturally challenged ones like me.

    So don’t get mixed up because they, or we, are big fans of freedom of speech. There are some cultures which don’t allow this kind of fundamental human right. The trend in Western countries is alarming though, mostly because of this multicultural or should I say cultural relativist madness going on. But it is NOT a sign of hate, it’s the opposite. So relax, man.

  7. Elven archer

    What? I said many times it was a very stupid comment. I made it very clear that it was something to be argued AGAINST. So why are you reading the opposite and putting words in my mouth? That’s not cool, man. That’s not cool at all. Do that again so boldly and this discussion is over from my part. I really don’t like my words being twisted. That’s dishonest and I hate that.

    I just also argued that’s it’s still better that people like him can say those things aloud. And they won’t if they are facing jail time like the trend in here Finland also suggests with a loud support from the multiculturalists. I gave several arguments why it’s better that way. Answer those if you can but don’t put words in my mouth, please. Venting steam is always better than blocking steam because everybody knows what happens when the pressure gets too high.

    A politician revealing his true feelings is a way better than him hiding them for years and continuing acting in politics and in The Finns party based on those feelings, hidden but still there. Because the freedom of speech his political career seems to be basically over. So yes, I see his comment disturbing but now everybody knows and it’s better. His political career took a dive so deep I can’t imagine he’s ever able to get a responsible position in politics making major decisions. That’s good, right? If some people got the hate speech laws they wanted these kind of good things probably won’t happen because of fear to face criminal charges. And that’s a bad thing, obviously. The attitudes don’t go away with that, remember. The attitudes must be dealt publicly with words, with reason. Every major discussion forum and even the critics to the immigration policies in here condemned those comments.

    Also the freedom of speech is a human right. It’s a terrible thing to take one’s voice away, to suppress him and force him to shut up. That is totalitarianism, that’s dictatorship. That’s a road paved to hell. It’s easy to agree to those with power. Every dictatorship allows that. The real test for the human rights is to say something nobody likes. I see a lot of wrongness in his comments, but it is in his rights to say that (or it should be, multiculturalism with it’s political correctness is killing free speech and freedom of mind). The society is better that way for everybody.

  8. Elven archer

    Regarding England. Respect the freedom of speech. One can’t have a democracy without it. Treat everybody equal. Don’t allow parallel justice systems like those 85+ sharia courts ruled by men, the patriarchs. Everybody must be equal in the face of the law. Oppose hatred even if it comes in the form of religion. Drop the double standards, don’t accept intolerance. Don’t believe anybody who says that tolerance increases with allowing intolerant fundamental values to be imported to the country.

  9. Mark

    Elven archer

    Don’t allow parallel justice systems like those 85+ sharia courts ruled by men, the patriarchs.

    There are several parallel justice systems operating in the UK, from local by-laws, to regional laws, to military courts, to different laws in England and Scotland.

    As an example, legislation for education is different between Wales, English, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Rules governing water use are applied differently on a regional basis in the UK. Planning policies are different. Local legislation governs the delivery of public services and financing.

    The point is that legislation in the UK isn’t some universally applied homogenous whole imposed from Westminster. Many levels of legislative controls are applied locally to meet local needs. If the principle itself is valid in the UK, then this does not rule out some elements of ‘resolution’ being subject to a Sharia jurisdiction if both parties agreed and the sentencing was not seen to violate the basic principles of British justice.

    Common sense, Elven Archer, and a willingness to study the current situation of British legislation before dismissing the idea out of hand.

    Oppose hatred even if it comes in the form of religion. Drop the double standards, don’t accept intolerance.

    I do agree about this. But was we know and is pointed out regularly, hatred is not illegal. But it should still be condemned when it’s applied blindly to ethnic groups. Condemn the behaviour, respect the person doing it. It’s the only way in a civilised world. It’s not something I always remember, but it’s something I do believe.

  10. Elven archer

    “Common sense, Elven Archer, and a willingness to study the current situation of British legislation before dismissing the idea out of hand.”

    Like this? 😉

    http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs91.php

    And here’s the pdf, enjoy:

    http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

    In addition to that I suggest you a little exploring of cultural study. I would pay much attention to the patriarchical nature of islam; who makes the calls, men or women, the dogmas of the religion etc. I suggest studying the masculinity of the cultures, the accepted power distance and so forth. For example. For Germany the power distance index is 35, Austria 11 and for the arab countries it’s about 80 (Hofstede). Combine that kind of hierarchical mindset to patriarchical and what do you get? Equality? Fair judgment by courts ruled by men?

    It doesn’t take much common sense to immediately detect some really potential problem areas. I read news about the country and think to myself that wow, that’s like a very big experiment, a warning to us all. Hopefully we still have time to avoid the same mistakes although here in Finland certainly are people you are really trying to repeat it. Their silver bullet is saying that they don’t make the same mistakes while doing the same 😀

  11. Mary Mekko

    Isn’t silence typical for Finland in all situations? Deep in the forest… if a woman is raped by a foreigner and nobody hears it… did it happen? Silence and deep snow, that is Finland’s solution for covering up what is unpleasant.

    Oh well! When Finns start talking, it’s not reallymuch better.

    Enrique, have you seen the Spanish film “Lovers of the Arctic Circle”, filmed in Rovaniemi?

  12. Desertgnu

    Elven archer

    ”I think you are really saying that why didn’t they use it as a political weapon against The Finns party?”

    Ok, why didn’t they even do that?

    I read your arguments and understand them, but without trying to sound insulting, I find your repeated cryings of the human right of ”freedom of speech” frankly insincere. You may get tired of political correctness, but the whining about defending the right to incite violence is as athetic an argument as I have ever heard.

    As they say, if you are in a theatre and someone shouts ”FIRE, FIRE, FIRE!!!” during a play, when their is no fire, would you defend his freedom of speech? Come on! And yes, please do stop referring to ”England”!!

    By calling his comments ”stupid” you are being disingenuous. They may, or may not merit reaction in your books, in your opinion, but by no measure are they ”stupid’. You know that.

    So what are Rautio’s comments, Räsänen’s silence, and your points, as I do associate the three. Here is what they are:

    Ready?

    Naive.

    Think about that. Think about how they show what development Finland needs.

    It is naive, for example, to bang Tony Blair’s drum of multiculturalism. The real reason for immigration is economic. It if Finland’s fault that Finland does not attract rich British, German or other workers. But Finland needs immigration. Your pension needs to be paid, and yes, those jobs need to be done. But more important, Finland particularly needs to learn about entrepreneurship. Without new companies starting the slow decline in the economy will only speed up. Don’t wait for Nokia or the state to lift the economy up by employing people, And don’t wait for the admirably skilled 1 person self-employed Finns (who I do admire) to supply the job market with jobs. You NEED to learn about entrepreneurship from immigrant’s who are willing to roll up their sleeves and create.

  13. Desertgnu

    Mary Mekko

    And what if a woman is raped by a Finnish man?

    Doesn’t happen? Ask my friend, (Finnish), who works in a hospital.

  14. Desertgnu

    Elven archer

    Spelling corrections – will edit better next time:

    ”You may get tired of political correctness, but the whining about defending the right to incite violence is as pathetic an argument as I have ever heard.”

    ”It is Finland’s fault that Finland does not attract rich British, German or other workers. But Finland needs immigration.”

  15. Desertgnu

    Elven archer

    ”In addition to that I suggest you a little exploring of cultural study. I would pay much attention to the patriarchical nature of islam; who makes the calls, men or women, the dogmas of the religion etc. I suggest studying the masculinity of the cultures, the accepted power distance and so forth. For example. For Germany the power distance index is 35, Austria 11 and for the arab countries it’s about 80 (Hofstede)”

    Yes, as I said. Naive. As someone who has worked in both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain I can honestly tell you your comments merely illustrate your naivety. The difference between the role and status of women in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, a mere 25 kilometres away, is huge. The difference from Finland to Estonia is also quite remarkable, as all those egalitarian Finnish men who go over to Estonia for cheap sex will happily testify.

    Many Islamic countries understand the change they need to make. If they need a role model to apply, the great age of Islamic science, when women really did share equal rights – while we in Europe were mulling around in mud huts with our pigs in the Dark Ages – would serve as an example. But it is also not healthy to look backwards in many of these countries: the Taliban were all about supposedly reaching back to the pure, real Islam – horrifically, and in an eerily similar way to the way Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia in the 1970s.

    However, the Muslem world generally does know 2 things: 1. don’t count on the ”west”. 2. The three recent public figures who did the most for women’s rights in Arab countries have been Qhaddafi, Sadam Hussein and Assad of Syria. Not exactly good examples to follow.

  16. Elven archer

    “Ok, why didn’t they even do that?”

    Maybe they are just tired after bashing someone like Jussi Halla-aho for years with they creative interpretations of his words? Like I said, the guy was never heard, media and the public condemned his words. He was kicked out of the party, so what was there really left to do? Why is it so important that political superstars should waste they time with something very minor like this?

    Actually I think I get it. Some people here (in this blog) think we Finns are a barrel full of gunpowder ready to explode from the slightest nudge. I think in reality we laugh at those nudges and people behind them. We don’t see a reason to make a big deal (actually it was covered in media and discussion forums very thoroughly) of someone saying something stupid. There’s no explosion coming to be afraid of. We are not the people marching to streets and burning stuff and throwing tomatoes at those we don’t like. We are hard to get excited, hard to anger. I think it is this view of Finnish culture which differentiates us regarding this matter. I know Hommaforum. I know the mentality of this awful xenophobic movement which I hear about and apparently am part of although I sure don’t feel like it! There’s nothing to be afraid of.

    I’m a very liberal guy. That’s why I am concerned about immigration politics, understanding cultures are different. Some are more conservative and less individual than others. That is the main reason. Then there’s issues like safety which is a very statistical fact. And money and how to spend it wisely to get as much good that it is possible. (For example one asylum seeker here costs same as hundreds in some other places; money is a limited resource.) So if there was something lurking, some dark and twisted Finnish attitudes, trying to hurt the free way of life, free thinking, individuality, being different, being equal and things like that I would be first one to cry out.

    “I read your arguments and understand them, but without trying to sound insulting, I find your repeated cryings of the human right of ”freedom of speech” frankly insincere. You may get tired of political correctness, but the whining about defending the right to incite violence is as athetic an argument as I have ever heard.”

    Yes. I am evil. I can not be trusted. I don’t make arguments. I whine.

    If my arguments are wrong, make better. Don’t insult me. Is that not a reasonable request?

    “By calling his comments ”stupid” you are being disingenuous. They may, or may not merit reaction in your books, in your opinion, but by no measure are they ”stupid’. You know that.”

    I had to look up the meaning of “disingenuous”. It means fake or deceptive, meaning I lie. Thank you so much. You are obviously a better human being than I.

    The comments were stupid in many levels. They were stupid because they were so wrong. They were stupid because no-one is not going to support that kind of thinking, no-one takes that kind of thing seriously and do something stupid because of his words. They were stupid for him because they ended his career (but it was a good thing for us knowing better whom to vote next time, but I guess this is whining). But hey, I lie, so… it could be anything.

    “Naive.”

    Yes. I lie and I’m stupid. Thanks for pointing that out. I’m so naive I could not have figured it out by myself. Although I’m puzzled that you didn’t counter my arguments, not one. Or maybe you did, but I didn’t understand. That’s how naive I am.

    “But Finland needs immigration. Your pension needs to be paid, and yes, those jobs need to be done. ”

    First there has to be jobs. There’s about 400 000 unemployed at the moment, one youth in four under 25. So if there’s not jobs, not people willing to pay money for the work, how come pouring more people in would help? Organizations are flattened, workers are empowered, the pensioners take take jobs with them when they quit working. There’s enough workers, do believe. There’s not enough money to hire them to wipe our asses clean when we are old (as the famous multicultural argument goes for the increased need of the work force).

    In certain immigrant groups illiteracy is more common than not, said the big boss man in the immigration office. I guess I believe knowing stats about the countries of origin. I don’t know the right word in English for the thing when you have workers and not-workers… that ratio… what is it called? Anyways, the current immigration policy makes the ratio worse, not better, because immigrants’ unemployment stats are worse than natives so your argument is not a good one.

    “You NEED to learn about entrepreneurship from immigrant’s who are willing to roll up their sleeves and create.”

    And I’m willing to take those immigrants into our country with open arms. I have nothing against immigration per se, very few do. Although Enrique probably won’t agree with that. I guest that’s the whole point of this blog?

    Elven archer, firing evil arrows of hate from the bushes.

  17. Elven archer

    “Yes, as I said. Naive. As someone who has worked in both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain I can honestly tell you your comments merely illustrate your naivety. The difference between the role and status of women in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, a mere 25 kilometres away, is huge. The difference from Finland to Estonia is also quite remarkable, as all those egalitarian Finnish men who go over to Estonia for cheap sex will happily testify.”

    Oh, how nice that you insulting me was not an accident. You certainly are a better person than I. It always pleases a multiculturally challenged person as I to meet someone with so good manners. But do you believe your name calling is the right direction to the world you want to build? Is this the world with many voices where everybody gets to say their share? Oh right, you didn’t believe in that one. Sorry.

    Although naive, I am proficient in hard science. I know the meaning of the validity of one’s experiences. You could say it doesn’t exist outside the one. But well, who am I to say anything. I simple pointed out a well known study but you have your own experiences. I guess that means I’m…. naive?

    “Many Islamic countries understand the change they need to make. If they need a role model to apply, the great age of Islamic science, when women really did share equal rights – while we in Europe were mulling around in mud huts with our pigs in the Dark Ages – would serve as an example.”

    That is a cliche, which unfortunately is not true. But enough of that. That was then, this is now. They can take whatever role models they want but this history lesson of yours is just a mere diversion. You didn’t deny anything I said. Patriarchical, power distance, things like that, remember? We are talking about what is happening now. That is the thing what shapes the future. That is the thing affecting lives right now. Like I said, I’m a very liberal guy. I don’t care much about religions, closed-mindness, tribalism and stuff like that. I like to be free. I want everybody to be free and themselves without someone trying to dictate them to get back in the line. To do that in a society we need people who share this fundamental idea. Otherwise it won’t work.

  18. Elven archer

    At the news today, or is it already tomorrow, Nicolas Sarkozy said France has too many foreigners, the BBC told. I guess this xenophonic… thing is spreading? All the leaders of the big nations of Europe have now said it. Which is very, very weird considering the advertised benefits. Who wouldn’t welcome the riches we were promised? This is no lie, in a brochure produced by our government agency they called our immigrants golden eggs. Gold? Who could refuse that? So why is the whole Europe so damn stubborn and againsts these obvious gains from immigration? Somebody is lying, don’t you think?

    Let’s take this theory, the contact hypothesis. It says that people like me are just ignorant and stupid. Sounds reasonable. The more the contact the better. Ignorance just fades away with meeting people and getting to know them. Oh, right. Putnam, a way more a multiculturalist than monoculturalist, shot that down with his study. Didn’t mean to do it though. How awkward is that?

    So what I’m saying…. Maybe there’s a reason? A good one. Maybe there’s all kinds of immigration? Is it all good? Well… that’s the question, isn’t it? And whatever it is, is it good enough a reason to bang ours heads against the wall when people are just not buying the idea? It just creates this… this blog, for example. The whole situation in Europe.

    I have read Enrique’s blog at random for years. Never wrote here before though. I must say I’m quite disappointed. Just look at this recent post. Enrique demands a certain kind of behaviour from our top politicians. But it just doesn’t belong to the Finnish culture, this hysteria thing, condemning people and making a big fuzz about it. And remember now that nothing happened. Some guy from somewhere said a stupid thing on Facebook like that’s really rare…. Nobody got hurt. I already argued it a beneficial thing without a single counter argument! Wait, is it an argument to call me names? No, I guess it is not. So there you go.

    Why can’t we handle the situation in our way? It’s a multicultural thing to do to let us have our way, isn’t it? But Enrique is telling us me need to change. We need to adjust. We need to embrace other cultures and their ways of do things. I don’t see a lot of posts saying for example muslims needing the change when they come here. That they need to adjust their view of the world, their religion. No, we need to, but not them. I find it a little bit of condescending but not against us. Think about it a minute and you’ll figure it out. So there’s a sharp contradiction in this blog. Enrique doesn’t like the Finnish way of doing things, like this guy getting kicked out of the party after 13 days. That’s just too damn bad, but isn’t it a different culture, isn’t it to be accepted? We didn’t accept the nasty comment but we handled it in our own style. Who’s to argue we don’t have to right to do that?

    Elven archer, your friendly neighborhood xenophobe, says good night. Thanks for listening, if that’s what you did.

  19. D4R

    I just came from reading Iltalehting discussion board, i was amazed seeing a threat against immigrants. There is this one person writing anonymously a very serious threat:

    Ei nimimerkkiä
    Vieras Viestejä: n/a

    ——————————————————————————–

    Lainaus:
    Tara Halogen kirjoitti:
    Emme me voi ketään leimata kansalaisuuden perusteella! Ainoa, jonka ehkä voi leimata on – yllätys yllätys – suomalainen heteromies! Ette kenties ole tutustuneet tilastoihin, mutta tämä epäkäs tappaa ja tuhoaa joka viikko!! Toistan: joka viikko!!

    Somalit eivät ole tehneet mitään pahuuttaan…

    Onneksi suomalaiset miehet on opetettu tappamaan, sitä taitoa tullaan vielä tarvitsemaan kun kansa pohjanmaalta laittaa stopin tälle hyysäykselle ja muulle paskalle…kytösavun aukeilla mailla on kansa mik aina on vaalinut vapauttansa, vannoivat näin pojat urheat siellä. orjuus pois taikka menköön henki niinkuin mennyt on isienkin kunnia kuolla on vapauden tiellä tää vala on horjumaton..

    I am asking, why isn’t iltalehti not getting involved this threat on their discussion board? there was just recently immigrants killings, and they’re alloweing this kind of violence incitement in their discussion board? what’s going on? is this even legal?

  20. Mark

    Elven

    Nobody got hurt. I already argued it a beneficial thing without a single counter argument!

    Beneficial how? That we see him being punished and condemned? Where’s the condemnation? And how does someone with such extreme views get so far into politics in the first place? There must have been a platform..

    Also you cannot speak for the harm felt by immigrants. I’ll tell you for nothing, his comments were chilling. No harm? You mean no physical harm. I take it you understand that mental health is just as significant as physical health?

    Those comments lead to further mistrust. You know, that thing that Putnam was able to show exists in US communities and which he called ‘hunkering’. But he’s skeptical like you about it. He suggests that it is a short-term effect that can be overcome with intelligence and creativity. He has said this:

    Diversity is a social construction that can be deconstructed and reconstructed – you can erase a line and draw a new line. I say the task is not to ‘make them like us’ but to create a new ‘we’ – a new, more encompassing identity.

    Indeed, it is funny that you worry about mistrust and then come on here bashing a blog that is calling constantly for more trust and more acceptance and contact.

    I can see you are a skeptic. Maybe you should be skeptical of your skepticism.

  21. Mark

    That they need to adjust their view of the world, their religion. No, we need to, but not them.

    You seem to mistake ethnicity for religious belief or world view. You cannot take a religious view that you don’t like and then use that to condemn an ethnic group. Why? Because people within a religion may have very different interpretations of their religion and very often do. You do not know how many in that group share the same belief and it’s certainly not fair to assume that all Muslims believe it’s fine to stone women to death for being raped, for instance.

    Bigotry in whatever cultural should be challenged, but challenge the behaviour, and don’t make the mistake of thinking that behaviour is caused by ethnicity. People are individuals.

    Religious, political and moral belief are individual matters and for that reason, you should not confuse them with ethnicity. Yes, Islam throws some moral challenges, but so does Christianity. How do you interpret Jesus telling his followers that children who curse their father should be put to death? Do you think this is something that should be used to condemn all Christians? Even in the days when Christianity was rampaging, crusading and killing hundreds of thousands of heretics, there were Christians who opposed the extremism.

    We should drop this idea of thinking about people of a certain ethnic group as belonging to a team, and then engaging in ‘team games’. That is the single biggest failing in this discussion.

  22. Farang

    About being silent, I don’t understand what is the problem. Why should Räsänen or media be louder about this incident compared to others wrongful deaths that happen in Finland? Just because the victim was an immigrant? Is that the reason?

    They are behaving similar way as they would if the victim was a Finnish guy. And this is how it should be.

    There was a comment above about “Finland not granting protection for immigrants”. What is that about? How would have any level of protection helped in that shooting? Nothing could have been done to avoid that.

    And what comes to comments from Rautio, those were disgusting words. But since he was able to say them, he revealed himself. If saying those things would have been criminal, then he would propably have been quiet and would still work in his position and the thoughts would still be there. Would you prefer that option? I doubt it.

    • Migrant Tales

      Farang, I can guess where you are coming from politically but I do not understand why a cold-blooded murder does not move you. Violence is always wrong, full stop. Don’t turn it into an ethnic/race issue, ok?

  23. Mark

    Farang

    Why should Räsänen or media be louder about this incident compared to others wrongful deaths that happen in Finland?

    Because other wrongful deaths do not make whole communities afraid, unless a killer is on the lose. If this was a random attack on immigrants simply because they were immigrants, and if this attack coincides with a wave of anti-immigration feeling in Finland, then the context for this murder is very different to ‘any other wrongful deaths’. It’s not different because it’s more, it’s different because it may represent a growing threat to immigrants. I didn’t say ‘does’, but it ‘may’. That is the reason.

    They are behaving similar way as they would if the victim was a Finnish guy. And this is how it should be.

    All other things being equal, yes, I would agree, but they are not. You seem to suggest that focusing on the victim’s ethnicity would be reverse racism. I’ll come back to that point below.

    How would have any level of protection helped in that shooting? Nothing could have been done to avoid that.

    It’s a fair point. I’m not sure it was meant literally. Protection from politicians?

    And what comes to comments from Rautio, those were disgusting words. But since he was able to say them, he revealed himself. If saying those things would have been criminal, then he would propably have been quiet and would still work in his position and the thoughts would still be there. Would you prefer that option? I doubt it.

    Thank you for condemning his words as disgusting.

    You are not the only one to try to see something positive in this. But really, telling immigrants that they should not 0worry about it is not very reassuring. His words are clearly part of a wider narrative, and one that is gaining popularity. Shutting the door on the subject and treating him as a ‘rogue’ does nothing to address the destructive narrative that he was pushing. Maybe as you are not a character in that narrative, you don’t feel particularly threatened. As an immigrant myself, I have to say it does make me concerned.

    Those things he said were very likely criminal. Has a decision been made yet by the police?

    It is good that he was kicked out of his position and I had no problem with them following procedure, though I also know that in the UK, he would have been forced to resign and so avoid a ‘procedure’ at all. That shows the party in a better light, but things are different in Finland, and that’s fine by me.

    But that he can arrive in that position with the kinds of views he has does raise questions about the kind of person that PS is attracting into its ranks. It doesn’t mean all PS members share his views, but the party should do more to prove that.

    When it comes to the identity of the victim, in a ‘colourless’ world, free of racism, then it’s not relevant. However, in the context of a rising anti-immigration feeling and the apparent lack of any other motive, it seems that this appears to have been a hate crime. That he was an alcoholic doesn’t really make me feel any easier. How many Finns was it that have a drinking problem?

    You see, when it comes to crimes by immigrants, all of a sudden, it’s all about their ethnicity. But when it’s crimes against immigrants, the ethnicity isn’t important.

    In other words, one minute ethnicity matters and the next it doesn’t. That seems inconsistent to me. The potential effect of one (criminals are foreigners) is to increase distrust and a discriminatory backlash, while the effect of the other (not reporting ethnicity) is to hide that backlash.

    Personally, I think that ethnicity is relevant in both cases. Crime is related to many factors, some of which are poverty related, some culture related, some individual. I don’t think we should ignore that. However, it must not be used to discriminate unfairly against all members of an ethnic group. It’s simply not fair and it’s not according to Finland’s laws, which have been made to be fair.

    As a kind of ‘after argument’ for arguing against immigration, it’s rather pointless. Immigrants are here, some bad apples and all. IN terms of numbers, Finland has a great deal more native bad apples to deal with. Fact, and not anything that reflects badly on ALL Finns. The crime of discrimination is not a good response to the visible or publicised crimes of immigrants.

    Crimes against immigrants are also important in regard to how well immigrants are integrating and being received into Finland. We are not in a situation yet where ‘ethnicity’ really doesn’t matter and we can ignore it. That would be foolish. That doesn’t mean that all crimes have racist motives either. That would be equally foolish. Let’s have some common sense about it.

  24. Farang

    How are you so certain that it does? So certain that based on that assumption you are expecting actions from minister level? Police has already stated that it had nothing to with victims ethnic background. It’s very arrogant from you to claim otherwise.

    That’s a big problem today. Always, when victim of a crime belongs to a minority, people like you immediately assumes that then belonging to that minority group is the reason for the crime. That doesn’t make any sense.

  25. Mark

    Farang

    If we are going to have a useful conversation about this, then you should read my comments more carefully.

    people like you immediately assumes that then belonging to that minority group is the reason for the crime. That doesn’t make any sense.

    And this was after I already wrote to you:

    That doesn’t mean that all crimes have racist motives either. That would be equally foolish.

    So, now that we’ve cleared that up, what about this – you wrote:

    Police has already stated that it had nothing to with victims ethnic background. It’s very arrogant from you to claim otherwise.

    I haven’t claimed that it has anything to do with his ethnicity, so I can assume the ‘arrogance’ slur is rather hasty. Please, play the ball and not the man.

    The killer shot himself. He’s dead. How can the Police be certain of his motives? In fact, the fact that they came out directly and said it had nothing do with his ethnicity strikes me as premature in the extreme. So what exactly was the motive? Where have the Police said there was no racial motive? Have they said that yet? Either way, I am a bit of skeptic about things. Call it my training. You are a bit of skeptic too, no? So what is wrong in showing a little skepticism towards the police statement and simply asking for more information? Indeed, you can understand why the Police would want to calm the immigrant community by suggesting it had nothing to do with racism, but unless they can support that claim publicly, it’s best not to make it. Sensible?

  26. Farang

    Well, usually crimes can be solved without help from the criminal, so it’s safe to assume that police can do their work even when the shooter is dead.

  27. Farang

    But since there is no indication that there were any racial motives, then there is no reason to suspect that there were, just because the victim was immigrant. Shooter was a nutcase, that’s the reason for the shooting.

  28. Mark

    Farang

    Well, usually crimes can be solved without help from the criminal, so it’s safe to assume that police can do their work even when the shooter is dead.

    Absolutely true, but you confuse the crime with the motive. Who committed the crime is not the issue and that is not why I mentioned that the shooter was dead. The issue is the motive, and in that sense, the killers death certainly presents a problem for the police, who must decide what connection there was, what his views about immigrants were (if only to rule out racism) and what his state of mind was on the day of the killing. The family of the victims deserve for this investigation to be done.

    But since there is no indication that there were any racial motives,

    Now how can you say that? Seriously? Are you privy to the police case? And in this case, if there is no evidence, is that enough to conclude there was no racial motive? With no evidence, the best we can do is rule it inconclusive.

    then there is no reason to suspect that there were, just because the victim was immigrant.

    If there appear to be no other motives, then racism is a valid suspicion.

    Shooter was a nutcase, that’s the reason for the shooting.

    Do you have any evidence for the fact that he was insane? I know he had killed before, but that doesn’t mean he’s insane, just for the record, it means he’s a dangerous individual. I’m assuming there was a motive in the previous murder? It was a friend, wasn’t it? They argued about something? It wasn’t random. So, what does that tell us about him?

    If you do not have evidence that he was insane and that it was his insanity that directly drove him to kill the immigrant and shoot the other one, then you are as much speculating as those you accuse of deciding that it was definitely a racist crime.

    I haven’t made my mind up, but I’m not going to be convinced by the kind of arguments you have so far put forward with clearly NO evidence to back it up.

  29. Farang

    Migrant Tales, why do you put words in my mouth? This murder disgusts me, I would be the first one to recommend death sentence to the shooter if he hadn’t killed himself. How dare you claim that the killing doesn’t move me?

    It was you, Mark and others who turned this into a ethnic/race issue. You said that because the victim was an immigrant, this shooting should have been specifically taken in account by minister Räsänen. If the victim would have been a Finnish guy, you hadn’t even written about it.

    My point is that every murder, every killing is equally wrong, no matter what is the race of the victim or the guilty one.

    • Migrant Tales

      –It was you, Mark and others who turned this into a ethnic/race issue.

      Within about a three-week span there were three killings. On that particular weekend, a Somali was killed by a Finn after going to a prom, a pizzeria employee shot and killed in cold blood and then the following day Tommi Rautio coming out with is suggestion to decorate the killer.

      You have to put all of these in context when speaking about Rautio.

      Why did we write about it? Because the Somali, Muslim and immigrant community have the right to be shocked and mourn their dead. Is there something wrong with that.

      You are the only one suggesting hate crime.

  30. Farang

    Mark, here is the problem I have with your attitude. You wrote:

    “If you do not have evidence that he was insane and that it was his insanity that directly drove him to kill the immigrant and shoot the other one, then you are as much speculating as those you accuse of deciding that it was definitely a racist crime.”

    You always refer to the victim as immigrant. Why don’t you refer to him as a person? This is exactly how you are making this a race/ethnic issue. This was a tragedy, innocent person, human being, lost his life.

  31. Mark

    Farang

    My point is that every murder, every killing is equally wrong, no matter what is the race of the victim or the guilty one.

    And I agreed. I’m not arguing that it is more wrong. Please check back again what I wrote, or else we’ll be constantly going over the same ground. The reason this killing is important is that first, the motive is unknown and needs investigation. Was the pizza shop next to this man’s home? Was it the first public place that he would have come across with his gun or after leaving a friend’s house? Or did he have to travel across town to enter the shop? These questions would be aimed at identifying if it was indeed the ‘random insane’ shooting you are already convinced it is. I would like to know the evidence of the case.

    The other point which I made to you is that there is now a narrative around this killing which involves a national politician (an election candidate for goodness sake) putting this killing into the context of a war against immigrants. While PS have dealt with that, and I welcomed Soini’s condemnation of the comments as racist and inhumane, other politicians have not acknowledged that immigrant communities would be concerned about this. This comes on the back of two other deaths in as many weeks, the motives for which again remain shrouded in mystery – with the only word from Police being ‘it’s not racism’. Pardon? Then what was it? That’s a fair question. There is a narrative here that needs to be challenged if only to reassure immigrants, because, YES, our confidence is also important, and this silence and blanket denial undermines trust and increases the sense of threat.

    You always refer to the victim as immigrant. Why don’t you refer to him as a person? This is exactly how you are making this a race/ethnic issue. This was a tragedy, innocent person, human being, lost his life.

    It’s funny, you even quoted my question to you about the motive here and your conclusion that he was insane and asked you for evidence. You provided none and instead pointed out the blatantly obvious that I had referred to him as an immigrants AS IF this is the problem, as if this is the racism that should be tackled.

    How about you stop attacking me, provide some evidence to back up your own claims about him being insane? I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again, the ethnicity may not be relevant, but it’s important in the absence of any other motive to explore this line of inquiry. What makes me so suspicious in this case is that the claims that it was not a racist crime are being made with NO evidence being put forward. Until I see evidence about likely motive or past history, I will keep asking the question – was this a race crime?

    This was a tragedy, innocent person, human being, lost his life.

    I welcome this from you, but can you understand that this would not be enough for the family and friends of the victims. They want to know why!

  32. Mark

    Farang

    Mark said: “If you do not have evidence that he was insane and that it was his insanity that directly drove him to kill the immigrant and shoot the other one, then you are as much speculating as those you accuse of deciding that it was definitely a racist crime.”

    I said this to you and you have given me no reason to believe that your opinion is any less speculative than anyone else’s. On the contrary, you dislike my attitude in referring to the victim as an immigrant, as if this obviously had NOTHING to do with this, when in fact, the reality is that it is has been conclusively proved either way. Until it is, then the issue of ethnicity remains valid.

    So, where is your proof of insanity, Farang? Or am I to be misquoted yet again 😀

  33. Farang

    Isn’t it obvious? To me a person who is capable of murdering an innocent man, is insane. Don’t you think that’s a fair assumption?

    Yes, it’s still assumption and ofcourse I have no medical proof of that 🙂

    But I don’t like it when people automatically have assumptions of racial motives, if the victim is immigrant.

  34. Mark

    Isn’t it obvious? To me a person who is capable of murdering an innocent man, is insane. Don’t you think that’s a fair assumption?

    No, I don’t. Usually murderers know their victims and there has been a history of conflict. People can kill for quite rational reasons, out of jealousy, out of anger, out of hatred, out of revenge etc. In my mind, these have little to do with insanity, but rather the choice to employ violence as a way to express emotions. When I say rational, I mean that the perpetrator may choose to justify or explain their actions on the basis of the strength of feeling that they experienced, or the strong sense of having been wronged.

    Yes, it’s still assumption and of course I have no medical proof of that.

    Thank you for being honest. I guess you realise then that you are speculating, just like those you are criticising, even if you think your reasoning is better than theirs.

    Personally, I haven’t made my mind up, even if you have tried to put me several times into that camp.

    But I don’t like it when people automatically have assumptions of racial motives, if the victim is immigrant.

    Which is fair enough by me. There need to be several things before I will seriously consider the crime as a possible race crime, including lack of any other motive. And even then, it’s only a possibility that I think ought to be considered seriously, especially if there are already clear national tensions being stoked by national politicians.

  35. Elven archer

    “Beneficial how?”

    I already said it very clearly, twice. I won’t repeat my arguments which are still not countered. I’m starting to think that this absent-mindedness is purely tactical.

    “That we see him being punished and condemned? Where’s the condemnation?”

    He was kicked out of the Finns party. He was laughed at on discussion boards, even in Hommaforum where people were saying how incredible stupid is to say things like that. Our media made a big deal about it and demanded action from The Finns party. which there was. This is still somewhat a free country, you know, so it seems enough. We usually don’t throw our wrong-thinkers in jail, although there’s a growing demand for that from the multiculturalists in our country.

    “And how does someone with such extreme views get so far into politics in the first place? There must have been a platform..”

    So far? Like a member of the municipal council of Köyliö which is a very known and huge Finnish city with a population of 2 810. Wow, that’s far, indeed!1! Did he need even tens of votes or did a single digit do?

    Yes, the platform of ignorance which is the opposite of the freedom of speech. The voters didn’t now about the man’s true feelings but thanks to the freedom of speech, now they know. Talk me more about the platform if he gets a landslide in the next election. At the moment it sure looks like his political career hit a dead end. I wonder if there must be a platform for that…

    “I take it you understand that mental health is just as significant as physical health?”

    Yeah. And if I said there’s no god, somebody would hurt severely his feelings. So what? This blog hurts my feelings. I read from here your descriptions of us (the Finns), very negative things indeed, very negative attitudes towards us. So what? Would you prefer that you could not say what’s on your mind because I’m feeling a kind of bad (I really do) because of the things said here? I didn’t think so. Someone’s feelings are a really bad meter to decide of what can be said.

    “You know, that thing that Putnam was able to show exists in US communities and which he called ‘hunkering’. But he’s skeptical like you about it.”

    Diversity causes hunkering, that was the result. He’s suggestions were not a part of the study, the real hard evidence, they were his visions and hopes, not backed up by the evidence he gathered.

    “Indeed, it is funny that you worry about mistrust and then come on here bashing a blog that is calling constantly for more trust and more acceptance and contact.”

    Me bashing the blog? Well, after being insulted many times (didn’t insult back anybody) I did point out how this blog is forcing your own expectations down our throats. This case was handled in a very Finnish way but instead of respecting our culture you call us names. You say this is very frightening meaning we are frightening, our attitudes are frightening. Pointing that out is hardly bashing anybody. Although my English is not so good, so maybe bashing something means disagreeing with an ability to back it up with very solid arguments?

    • Migrant Tales

      –This case was handled in a very Finnish way but instead of respecting our culture you call us names.

      Nice try, but no cigar. Politicians are only starting to wake up today and draw lines on what is acceptable and what is not. There is nothing “cultural” about how to react to racism. It must be first and foremost a reaction. A politician thinking that he can for about 2 weeks get away with such a statement like Rautio shows how out of touch some Finns are about the issue.

      The media did a good job but the PS dragged its feet, even the police.

  36. Elven archer

    “You cannot take a religious view that you don’t like and then use that to condemn an ethnic group. Why? Because people within a religion may have very different interpretations of their religion and very often do.”

    Of course. There is not a single thing that connects the muslims to islam, I’ve heard it before. I wonder, why then, they call it islam? I wonder, if there’s not a single thing that separates the muslims from the pastafarians for example. I wonder if there’s not a single thing in islamic world that gives a slightest hint that in general the view of the world there could be a little different from, say, the western world. I guess there is not a difference because you can’t say anything about islam in general. Can’t even refer to studies without being called naive and deceptive.

    “You do not know how many in that group share the same belief and it’s certainly not fair to assume that all Muslims believe it’s fine to stone women to death for being raped, for instance.”

    Who would assume such a thing? Yours words, certainly not mine. In Britain a poll told that almost 40 % of the muslims there would want to see sharia law in Britain. Yes, yes, yes, not all sharia interpretations are the same. But none of them is very… well… let’s say modern either and not without very potential problems considering for example equality between the sexes. In Finland a small poll executed by the local Human rights association told that almost the half of the muslims answering the poll would put sharia law before secular law if there was a contradiction. But of course there is not a single difference in the core values between the muslims and the other groups. Did you already read that pdf? That study showed some real problem areas regarding those sharia courts.

    “Bigotry in whatever cultural should be challenged, but challenge the behaviour, and don’t make the mistake of thinking that behaviour is caused by ethnicity. People are individuals.”

    Again, your words. I didn’t say a single word about ethnicity. I talked about religion (as a whole because you really can’t talk individually about 1,4 billion people’s islam for practical reasons and if there’s nothing in common then they would be no such thing as islam). That’s a mental thing, right? Religion is an idea. You don’t born with it. You don’t have to believe in it. Ideas can be criticized. Ideas must be criticized, questioned. But this is getting tiring really fast. I didn’t come here to answer your straw mans. This is really lame.

    “Religious, political and moral belief are individual matters and for that reason, you should not confuse them with ethnicity.”

    Like I said. Really lame. You should not answer the questions I didn’t ask. You should not talk about things like I talked about them when I didn’t.

    “Yes, Islam throws some moral challenges, but so does Christianity. How do you interpret Jesus telling his followers that children who curse their father should be put to death?”

    One wrong doesn’t make the other one right. I hardly consider defending religion with religion as a solid argument.

    “Do you think this is something that should be used to condemn all Christians?”

    I didn’t know I condemned all the muslims? Straw mans, straw mans… I simply presented scientific observations about the patriarchical nature of islam, and the power distance again backup up by the studies and that’s all. The rest is your doing. Everything I said can be looked up and found true. If truth is condemning so be it.

  37. Elven archer

    “Nice try, but no cigar. Politicians are only starting to wake up today and draw lines on what is acceptable and what is not.”

    Yeah, that is what is truly frightening because we already have seen political trials: Halla-aho, Hirvisaari and van Vonterghem. Halla-aho was accused of spreading hatred against the minority when he showed the double standards in media by presenting an analogy. When the same thing was said about the Finns in the media, it was fine. But when the Halla-aho made an analogy just to make a point, to show the double standard, he was prosecuted which proved Halla-aho’ point better than he ever could. That’s scary as hell, this mind police kind of mentality. But I get it. You don’t think everybody has a right to the freedom of the speech which is a fundamental human right. Those guys didn’t threat anyone but the line was drawn very politically, indeed. And you support that. You want even more control. As a liberal I can’t support your conservative thinking, sorry.

    “There is nothing “cultural” about how to react to racism. It must be first and foremost a reaction. ”

    Actually Rautio’s comment was not racism, about race, it was very xenophobic, but not racist. And of course we handle things our way. The Finns party didn’t kick him out without hearing him first. I really don’t want the world where you get judged without an opportunity to present your case. It is funny that the world I believe in is a way more tolerant place. There’s no pitchforks and torches and crowds going wild without consideration.

    “A politician thinking that he can for about 2 weeks get away with such a statement like Rautio shows how out of touch some Finns are about the issue.”

    So it’s a cultural thing after all! It’s tough that you don’t like our culture. We can’t comment for example islamic culture without being called many names but you certainly can comment our way of doing things. It’s very Finnish to take these things slow, not to be hasty just for the looks of it. I’m sorry you don’t like it.

  38. Mark

    Elven

    I already said it very clearly, twice. I won’t repeat my arguments which are still not countered. I’m starting to think that this absent-mindedness is purely tactical.

    No, not really. I noticed you said he was criticised for ‘saying’ those things, not for ‘thinking’ them.

    We usually don’t throw our wrong-thinkers in jail.

    And who suggested he should be? Straw man. However, there is a chance that he broke the law, nevertheless.

    Yeah. And if I said there’s no god, somebody would hurt severely his feelings. So what? This blog hurts my feelings

    I think you seriously miss the point. Three deaths in three weeks, no motives given, and we’re all told, it’s not racism.

    Talk me more about the platform if he gets a landslide in the next election. At the moment it sure looks like his political career hit a dead end. I wonder if there must be a platform for that…

    Yes, because he was stupid enough to open his mouth. But if he hadn’t, just how far do you think he would have got? How many others of similar ilk lurk in the PS?

    Someone’s feelings are a really bad meter to decide of what can be said.

    Again, you miss the point. People’s feeling are important. In fact, the whole integration of foreigners in Finland depends on it. Dismiss them at your peril.

    He’s suggestions were not a part of the study, the real hard evidence, they were his visions and hopes, not backed up by the evidence he gathered.

    That’s incorrect. His belief that this is short term phenomenon can only be backed up by a much longer study, and the data available were not over a long enough period to say one way or the other that his hypothesis was wrong.

    This case was handled in a very Finnish way but instead of respecting our culture you call us names. You say this is very frightening meaning we are frightening, our attitudes are frightening. Pointing that out is hardly bashing anybody.

    My argument with you stems from the fact you said:

    Nobody got hurt.

    Actually three people are dead and another seriously injured with no explanation as yet. All your comments have been to downplay the effect of that. This all fits into a wider narrative in Finland, and which Rautio’s comments were perfectly consistent with. That is why politicians should address the problem. Dismiss us as insensitive fools, but that only further reinforces the idea that people in Finland are deliberately turning a blind eye to the discrimination and xenophobia that exists here.

    Come back when you’ve learned about real dialogue on community relations.

  39. Elven archer

    In Oulu there was a trial a few days ago. There an immigrant was sentenced very mildly (3 years, in practise only 1 year in jail) for putting a young man in a wheel chair probably for the rest of his life. He stabbed him several times, one stab hit the spine. Are the Finns shocked about that? Yes, but because of the sentence (like they usually are).

    It’s really unfair present these Oulu incidents as a part of something bigger. A killer killed again. That’s what happens when you can’t put them in jail for life in this country. It sucks but it’s the same for us all. There has been no proof of racism involved. An immigrant mailman jumped out of a balcony because three men approached him to question why the woman involved claimed he had harassed her just a moment ago at that night. The media reported that as an assault against an immigrant for a very long time. The certain people filled discussion boards claiming that proves the racism in this country. Then the truth came out. Then there was that other jumping. What is it with the proper use of windows? Why people are jumping out of the buildings? Is it because some people go very far out to show that the Finns are to be afraid of? What’s their responsibility in there matters? They are just spreading distrust and fear. They have been doing it for years and especially against The Finns party and the critics of the immigration policies describing them as some sort of monsters. Maybe it’s starting to show? Some people are getting really afraid. That is really depressing. If you just stay out of the certain drinking parties whose criminal records show you should, you are statistically quite safe. And that goes for the immigrants and the natives both.

    I voted for the Finns party, I’m an immigration policies critic. Do you think it’s funny for me to hear I’m a horrible person all the time? Well, it’s not. But it’s the price of the freedom of speech that in case I have to pay. But some people like to be martyrs, the only ones treated badly. Crime statistics show that an foreigner/immigrant is more likely to commit a crime in this country. There’s remarkable differences between different groups of immigrants. Statistics show they are also more likely to be suspects of the so called hate crimes. Yes, yes, yes, the institutional racism and that kind of sh*t. Believe if you want but these clear figures show that this fear thing in Oulu is just out of it’s proportions. And they certainly show that the Finns are not so particularly plagued with racism like some people so eagerly are claiming about us.

  40. Elven archer

    “No, not really. I noticed you said he was criticised for ‘saying’ those things, not for ‘thinking’ them.”

    Well.. yes? Because now we know what he is thinking. Just like I said. Also I should point out that my English is not so good that it should be nitpicked.

    “And who suggested he should be? Straw man. However, there is a chance that he broke the law, nevertheless.”

    The multiculturalists. And.. you? Just there, look. Broke the law maybe, you words, and you certainly are not feeling bad about those laws, are you? So not a straw man but an accurate perception.

    “I think you seriously miss the point. Three deaths in three weeks, no motives given, and we’re all told, it’s not racism.”

    What’s the point, then? No proof, so it is racism? I really am missing your point.

    “Yes, because he was stupid enough to open his mouth. But if he hadn’t, just how far do you think he would have got? How many others of similar ilk lurk in the PS?”

    Oh, so you do see the beauty of the freedom of speech? I have no idea how far he would had gone. He was a councilman in Köyliö, population 2810. A former election candidate for the social democrats kidnapped a person a couple of years ago. How many other kidnappers are there lurking in the SDP?

    “Again, you miss the point. People’s feeling are important. In fact, the whole integration of foreigners in Finland depends on it. Dismiss them at your peril.”

    Our peril? Seems dangerous this whole immigration thing if the stakes are that high? Perhaps we should pull the brakes so that we can solve this problem first before continuing that dangerous a business? Are my feelings important too? So would you please stop putting me and the other Finns down if I ask nicely? Like I said, this blog has hurt my feelings a very long time. It gives a very unfair picture of the Finns and living in Finland. Does that mean you have to unplug your web server because of my feelings? Or can you continue to talk about different ideas, beliefs and subjects? If I said there was no god and believing something without any evidence is irrational, somebody surely would get offended. If I drew a certain god, somebody could even try to kill me. You can’t draw lines based on someone who has a way too thin skin and who gets his feelings hurt even if nobody was talking to him of him. Ideas are fair game. If there are not, that’s dangerous, that means there’s something to hide.

    “That’s incorrect. His belief that this is short term phenomenon can only be backed up by a much longer study, and the data available were not over a long enough period to say one way or the other that his hypothesis was wrong.”

    Yes, his beliefs contrary to his own study. Talking about cognitive dissonance.

    “Actually three people are dead and another seriously injured with no explanation as yet.”

    Before the discussed matter even happened! Wow, talking about desperation to argue just for the sake of it. Be honest, if that is the way you think, is there a single reason for me to continue this discussion or is it really a discussion, a dialogue? So yes, nobody got hurt (from the words) if you didn’t just invent a time machine.

  41. Farang

    Few years back in Oulu, three muslim immigrants gang raped a young woman and mutilated her with scissors. With the same logic that is applied in this blog, should Finns have started screaming about the need to be afraid of immigrants?

    Why is it than when an immigrant commits a crime, it’s treated as just a random act of an individual, but when an immigrant is a victim of a crime that is a horrible racist act which is part of something bigget that requires immediate actions from the whole country?

  42. Elven archer

    “Come back when you’ve learned about real dialogue on community relations.”

    I don’t think I do. The hostility you have directed at me is not very appealing. I didn’t offend anybody before the name calling started. Before putting words in to my mouth started. I just made a mistake disagreeing with you, and with solid arguments (still not countered) I must say. What’s the point of discussion if the arguments have no weight in it? If I want to read how naive and deceptive I am, I can just open up any Finnish newspaper. They constantly tell us how violent no-good racist drunks we are. I haven’t seen any tries to diminish THAT image in this blog.

    “Dismiss us as insensitive fools, but that only further reinforces the idea that people in Finland are deliberately turning a blind eye to the discrimination and xenophobia that exists here.”

    I haven’t called you any names. But what about you? What did you just do? It that the “real dialogue on community relations” you were referring to? I don’t think I want to a part of this kind of “dialogue”. So keep up your good work telling us Finns what we are and what we should do. Obviously our way of handling things, our political culture is just so wrong. Multiculturalism is so great but that doesn’t mean we Finns should have the right to keep our way of dealing things, right?

    Goodbye.

  43. Mark

    Elven

    Let’s get the straw men stuff out the way, shall we?

    Who would assume such a thing? Yours words, certainly not mine.

    Again, your words. I didn’t say a single word about ethnicity.

    Like I said. Really lame. You should not answer the questions I didn’t ask. You should not talk about things like I talked about them when I didn’t.

    But this is getting tiring really fast. I didn’t come here to answer your straw mans. This is really lame.

    I didn’t know I condemned all the muslims? Straw mans, straw mans…

    A straw man argument is when someone presents an argument that they claim is yours but is somehow a watered down and typically absolutist version that is all too easy to refute.

    However, the things I wrote that you seemed to construe as straw men were statements expressing my own point of view. I did not say anything about what I thought your argument was.

    Perhaps it was stating the obvious. But for many people criticising us, the things I said are clearly not obvious or they become contentious.

    I’m really not interested in putting up straw men arguments. I accept that your point was not about ethnicity and that I misinterepted your ‘they’ [need to adjust their world view, their religion] as refering to ethnic groups and I’m happy to move on and discuss your words purely in the context of religious culture.

    I simply presented scientific observations about the patriarchical nature of islam, and the power distance again backup up by the studies and that’s all.

    I agree that Islam is in many parts of the world patriarchical.

    Of course. There is not a single thing that connects the muslims to islam, I’ve heard it before. I wonder, why then, they call it islam?

    There are two extremes here, that Muslims are robots who’s behaviour is completely determined by their religion and one where there is absolutely no connection. I’m assuming we both believe something in the middle. So lets leave it there.

    Can’t even refer to studies without being called naive and deceptive.

    I pointed out that the author of the study did not have the pessimistic opinions about the implications of the study that you had. I think that is relevant.

    In Britain a poll told that almost 40 % of the muslims there would want to see sharia law in Britain. Yes, yes, yes, not all sharia interpretations are the same.

    I take it that you agree then that unless we know what kind of Sharia people have in mind, then the 40% is not exactly a revealing statistic, other than to say some people would like to see religious authorities have more say in their life as opposed to secular authorities.

    Also, the other thing to note is that 60%, i.e. enough to win an historic majority in the Houses of Parliament, did not want Sharia.

    But none of them is very… well… let’s say modern either and not without very potential problems considering for example equality between the sexes.

    Which is a valid point. However, let’s assume that European Muslims are smart enough to find a compromise.

    In Finland a small poll executed by the local Human rights association told that almost the half of the muslims answering the poll would put sharia law before secular law if there was a contradiction.

    So. Why does this worry you?

    But of course there is not a single difference in the core values between the muslims and the other groups.

    I disagree. I.e. I guess we agree about this, even though you seem to assume we won’t.

    Did you already read that pdf? That study showed some real problem areas regarding those sharia courts.

    I don’t doubt that Sharia would bring problems. But it’s also worth pointing out (and hopefully not to be construed as a straw man) that Finland has for the last 90 years had a parliament that is working non-stop to iron out the problems of different interest groups making different demands on the states resources and decision-making.

    That’s a mental thing, right? Religion is an idea. You don’t born with it. You don’t have to believe in it. Ideas can be criticized. Ideas must be criticized, questioned.

    I agree.

    Mark said: Yes, Islam throws some moral challenges, but so does Christianity. How do you interpret Jesus telling his followers that children who curse their father should be put to death?”

    One wrong doesn’t make the other one right. I hardly consider defending religion with religion as a solid argument.

    That was not the intention. The intention was to point out that elements of Christian doctrine are equally harsh, though historically, they are not implemented. Yet we still allow for the fact that Christians can live peacefully. Why not assume the same of Muslims, especially as the evidence about the majority of Europe’s 16 million Muslims are that they are peaceful.

    Halla-aho was accused of spreading hatred against the minority when he showed the double standards in media by presenting an analogy. When the same thing was said about the Finns in the media, it was fine. But when the Halla-aho made an analogy just to make a point, to show the double standard, he was prosecuted which proved Halla-aho’ point better than he ever could.

    Not sure what this refers to exactly. Can you give more information, please.

    But I get it. You don’t think everybody has a right to the freedom of the speech which is a fundamental human right.

    Do you really dislike straw men, or only when other people appear to use them?

    Those guys didn’t threat anyone but the line was drawn very politically, indeed. And you support that. You want even more control. As a liberal I can’t support your conservative thinking, sorry.

    I don’t want control, Elven, I want peace. And at the moment, the only people I see talking about war are Finns.

    Actually Rautio’s comment was not racism, about race, it was very xenophobic, but not racist.

    Well, perhaps you should take that up with Soini, because he called the remarks racist. Actually, we cannot be certain. If he said it because the victims were simply foreign I would agree. But if he said it because they were dark skinned, then that would be a different kind of bigotry. And if he did it on religious grounds, it would be another kind of bigotry again. It wouldn’t suprise me if he has a mixture of bigotries.

    I really don’t want the world where you get judged without an opportunity to present your case. It is funny that the world I believe in is a way more tolerant place.

    His case could have been heard by party officials over the phone. The facts were pretty incontrovertible.

    There’s no pitchforks and torches and crowds going wild without consideration.

    I take it you forgot to add the smiley to that comment.

  44. Mark

    Elven

    I don’t think I do. The hostility you have directed at me is not very appealing.

    What hostility? I’ve been pretty polite with you!

    So keep up your good work telling us Finns what we are and what we should do.

    Straw man!

    I didn’t offend anybody before the name calling started.

    Did I call you names? This was the first thing you wrote on this thread!

    What else do you need? Why should known politicians comment on every possible stupid thing from some neverheard from almost nowhere said on Facebook? “I comdemn this obviously stupid comment as… stupid! Now the world is a way better place!”

    Yep, I can see you came here wanting a sensible discussion.

  45. Mark

    Elven

    Seriously, if you think that you can dismiss this comment of Rautio’s as just ‘stupid’, there is no sensible discussion after that.

    The man talked about a war with immigrants and giving medals to murderers of immigrants.

    This was a public official!

    Unfuckingreal!

  46. eihannu

    Mark, kirjoitan nyt suomeksi koska vitutus estää englanniksi kirjoittamisen, kääntäköön ken tahtoo.
    Noissa tapauksissa poliisi ei sanonut että rasismi ei olisi mahdollista, tutkitaan ennenko hutkitaan on erittäin hyvä sääntö.
    Pizzapaikkatapauksessa tuli selväksi että ampuja oli vanha asiakas joka ilman ongelmia oli ollut asiakkaana ja mikään ei viitannut siihen että syy olisi ollut rotu.
    Ampuja oli tunnetusti väkivaltainen ja impulssiherkkä. Eräs vastaava melkein onnistui tappamaan minut koska lasi kolahti liian lujaa pöydälle. Luoti meni hivenen ohi ja minä ja muut vietiin aseet. Hirtti itsensä joten tuomiota ei tullut.
    Parveketapauksessa sanottiin heti aluksi että mikään ei viittaa rasismiin mutta sitä ei suljeta poiskaan ja tutkitaan ennenko hutkitaan.
    Selväksi tuli että porukka joka oli tunnettu poliisin puolesta meni potkimaan ovea jonka takana mies joka jotenkin väärin kohteli naista hyökkääjien mielestä. Mikään ei viitannut rasistiseen motiiviin. Tässäkin enrique valehteli moottorisahoista. Ovet kestää kyllä aika paljon ja oven läpi menemiseen tarvii paljon enemmän kun elokuvissa.
    Voin omakohtaisesta kokemuksesta sanoa että tuollaisen lynkkäysjoukon saa helposti peräänsä vaikka olet paikallinen.
    Mikään ei viittaa siihen että rodulla olisi ollut mitään tekemistä minkään kanssa.

    Ja mark etkö halua että viralliset edustajat sanovat mielipiteensä ja ihmisille annetaan oikeus hyväksyä tai olla hyväksymättä se? Raution mielipide oli minun mielestä typerä ja johti seuraamuksiin mutta hänellä oli ja on oikeus esittää se. Ilman tätä oikeutta ei ole olemassa oikeusvaltiota.
    Sano mielipitees rehelllisesti ja anna ihmisten arvioida.

  47. Mark

    Elven

    A killer killed again. That’s what happens when you can’t put them in jail for life in this country.

    That is hardly the full facts of the case is it? Was there a motive? Why is it so offensive to you to simply ask the question of whether it was a race crime? I cannot see how anyone can be certain at this point, but I will not take a simple police statement, ‘it wasn’t a race crime’ unless there is some explanation of what it was, and what the evidence is for that. That’s all I’m asking. But you are hell bent on representing my position as something other than it is.

    There has been no proof of racism involved.

    And there has been no talk of what it actually was. So in the absence of some kind of explanation, I think it’s fair to ask, what evidence allows us to rule out a race crime?

    Our peril? Seems dangerous this whole immigration thing if the stakes are that high?

    Why are you so mocking? What stakes? The point is that people are complaining that thing will end up like Sweden or the UK in the worst race riots. What is the answer? Dialogue and constructive work with community leaders. Dismissing the well-being of immigrants in the way you do, and distorting even the most conservative calls to take relations into account into something ‘dangerous’ just demonstrates how little you really understand, despite your hours spent online arguing and researching. On that matter, let me tell you something, social science is not carried out the way you seem to do it. People do have opinions, but they are generally respectful of others. You seem only interested in evidence not because of the nuances and further questions it throws up, but only to support a political stance. Wow, never seen that before!

    I haven’t called you any names. But what about you? What did you just do? It that the “real dialogue on community relations” you were referring to?

    Two things. Community relations is a useful concept for you to put into your vocabulary, because everything you have written hear tells me that you have absolutely zero understanding about this absolutely crucial concept. Okay, maybe ‘zero’ is stretching it, but you get the point. That is my opinion, by the way, not a straw man.

    Second, and more importantly, your whole argument has been that we shouldn’t take seriously the ‘stupid’ comments of a minor public official who jumps onto a ‘random’ killing as a way of promoting a sense of counter-jihad and even suggesting a medal for someone who cold-bloodedly killed an immigrants. And yet you are so offended by a few comments on here along the lines of ‘naive’, ‘stupid’, and ‘uninformed about community relations’.

    Something doesn’t add up!

  48. Mark

    Noissa tapauksissa poliisi ei sanonut että rasismi ei olisi mahdollista, tutkitaan ennenko hutkitaan on erittäin hyvä sääntö..

    Okay, good to hear that racism has not been ruled out. Why was this difficult to say in English?

    Pizzapaikkatapauksessa tuli selväksi että ampuja oli vanha asiakas joka ilman ongelmia oli ollut asiakkaana ja mikään ei viitannut siihen että syy olisi ollut rotu.

    This only serves to rule another motive, that of grievance for poor service.

    Parveketapauksessa sanottiin heti aluksi että mikään ei viittaa rasismiin mutta sitä ei suljeta poiskaan ja tutkitaan ennenko hutkitaan.

    Again you are happy to accept in Finnish that racism is not ruled out.

    Voin omakohtaisesta kokemuksesta sanoa että tuollaisen lynkkäysjoukon saa helposti peräänsä vaikka olet paikallinen.
    Mikään ei viittaa siihen että rodulla olisi ollut mitään tekemistä minkään kanssa.

    I can quite understand the logic of a crime like this not involving racism. However, a group of Finns going after an immigrant, whether to ‘question’, or ‘to break into his flat’ cannot be presented as acceptable behaviour, because it has all the trademarks of a lynching. If there is grievance, then the police must deal with it. There are lynchings that don’t involve racism, but then there are those that do.

    Ja mark etkö halua että viralliset edustajat sanovat mielipiteensä ja ihmisille annetaan oikeus hyväksyä tai olla hyväksymättä se? Raution mielipide oli minun mielestä typerä ja johti seuraamuksiin mutta hänellä oli ja on oikeus esittää se. Ilman tätä oikeutta ei ole olemassa oikeusvaltiota.

    Well, I’m not suggesting Rautio goes to prison, maybe a fine would be okay. I’m more concerned that there is this narrative developing and nobody in mainstream politics is saying anything to counter it. You can complain that people are stupid to be afraid, but calling them stupid is not reassurance, is it?

  49. Mark

    Elven

    And just to come to Robert Putnam’s defence

    Yes, his beliefs contrary to his own study. Talking about cognitive dissonance.

    With all due respect, Elven, Putnam is one of the most respected sociologists in the world. I really think you disrespect him by taking his data and then ignoring his conclusions. The Social Capital Community Benchmark survey was a one-off study from the year 2000. Only a repeat study tied to data on efforts to improve community relations could show what you claim his data show, that it is not a short-term effect.

  50. Mark

    Farang

    Welcome back. Found a new line of argument I see:

    Few years back in Oulu, three muslim immigrants gang raped a young woman and mutilated her with scissors. With the same logic that is applied in this blog, should Finns have started screaming about the need to be afraid of immigrants?

    Why is it than when an immigrant commits a crime, it’s treated as just a random act of an individual, but when an immigrant is a victim of a crime that is a horrible racist act which is part of something bigget that requires immediate actions from the whole country?

    That was awful what happened to that woman.

    should Finns have started screaming about the need to be afraid of immigrants?

    Well let me see, did any of the Somali community leaders come out afterwards and say something along the lines of “she got what she deserved, didn’t you know that we are at war with you Finns?” Because if they did, then I would understand you being afraid. If an Islamic political party in Finland campaigned on the idea that Finns should be kicked out of Finland and replaced with more Muslim immigrants from Africa and elsewhere and actually won nearly 20% of the vote, then I would understand you being afraid.

    Why is it than when an immigrant commits a crime, it’s treated as just a random act of an individual, but when an immigrant is a victim of a crime that is a horrible racist act which is part of something bigget that requires immediate actions from the whole country?

    Wow, that sounds really racist Farang. Probably as racist as Finns saying that all acts of violence against immigrants by Finns are just random and then saying that the violence and rapes by immigrants is part of something bigger, a fundamental problem in the types of immigrants coming to Finland!

    You know, some day we might all meet in the middle and find out we weren’t so different after all.

  51. Elven archer

    “And there has been no talk of what it actually was.”

    Yes there is. All the bloggins here link these recent events together. It’s not all that subtle. This blog asking is really not asking. It is convinced that there’s a problem that needs to be addressed over and over again.

    “So in the absence of some kind of explanation, I think it’s fair to ask, what evidence allows us to rule out a race crime?”

    I think it’s fair to ask what evidence allows us to rule out a possibility that a god, any of them, isn’t in fact a pink elephant surfing the cosmic waves. You can ask, but it’s backwards logic. And you really are not just asking. There’s no proof but you are going over and over again this same “question”.

    “What is the answer? Dialogue and constructive work with community leaders.”

    Yeah right. I think it’s soooo easy to be better at understanding, building more consensus, than the Swedes. Seriously, it can’t be done. You can’t have more dialogue than the Swedes. They are famous for it, they really are the best. And same goes for the rest of the Europe if you don’t share my views about the Swedish people. Apparently nobody has done it right. So considering the risks, I have a simpler solution. You won’t like it though. Let’s tighten our immigration policies from the so called the third world countries. Effective, cheap, no risks. Almost perfect. Who gives anybody the right to mess up with the demographics taking such risks while the whole Europe is failing in similar situation using similar means? Give me the silver bullet first. The arrogance, it’s bringing the whole Europe on it’s knees.

    “Dismissing the well-being of immigrants in the way you do”

    I’ve been an immigrant. I didn’t whine about my feelings when the locals did the things their way. I did not blame anybody but me for the success or failure of my being in there. I didn’t need to get everything in front of me in a silver plate. The man was laughed at national level, kicked out of the party, I bet he has no future in the politics. I ask you again, what more do you want and why is it a reasonable request? If the man likes giving medals, it’s he’s right. This is no (at least yet) f*cking dictatorship. But don’t worry, we are getting there step by step.

    “You seem only interested in evidence not because of the nuances and further questions it throws up, but only to support a political stance. Wow, never seen that before!”

    Evidence is better than no evidence. I have not dismissed any evidence in this thread. I have no political stance, no agenda. I look at the evidence and make conclusions. It’s funny that the discussion in this blog are immediately taken to the personal level.

    “Second, and more importantly, your whole argument has been that we shouldn’t take seriously the ‘stupid’ comments of a minor public official who jumps onto a ‘random’ killing as a way of promoting a sense of counter-jihad and even suggesting a medal for someone who cold-bloodedly killed an immigrants.”

    That is not an argument. When I told you WHY we shouldn’t take it anymore seriously, that was an argument, still unmatched. I gave you several arguments why those comments where just stupid, not harmful, mostly because there arguably was more good coming from them than bad. If you love Kant, you probably won’t agree, but I’m more practical than him.

    “And yet you are so offended by a few comments on here along the lines of ‘naive’, ‘stupid’, and ‘uninformed about community relations’.

    Something doesn’t add up!”

    If you can’t differentiate discussion about the matter and discussion about the persons who discuss the matter, no wonder you are having trouble with your math. So mister “Let’s condemn”, you think that it’s okay to insult people if they express “stupid” views on the subject? And look, I have not just said things, I have given good, solid rationale behind them. You might not be agreeing with me but in what world that gives you and your fellow conversationalists the right to call me naive? If it’s impossible to discuss in this blog without turning everything personal saying that I have zero knowledge of something (without any knowledge of my knowlege) or that me referring a famous study is naive, then I won’t.

  52. Elven archer

    “With all due respect, Elven, Putnam is one of the most respected sociologists in the world. I really think you disrespect him by taking his data and then ignoring his conclusions.”

    You are mixing things up. Conclusions are obvious. They are from the data. What you are referring to are his suggestions later to the conclusions of the study. He waited several years before publishing them after the study because he wanted to find an antidote to his conclusions, to his findings. Check his Wikipedia page, if not his study.

    “His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups.”

    “Putnam has been criticized for the lag between his initial study and his publication of his article. In 2006, Putnam was quoted in the Financial Times as saying he had delayed publishing the article until he could “develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity””

    I rest my case. There you have in his own words! Can you admit being wrong? Well, I guess we are to find out very soon. If the answer is negative, this really is goodbye. There’ no point to bang my head against something immutable no matter what is the truth.

  53. Mark

    Elven

    I think it’s fair to ask what evidence allows us to rule out a possibility that a god, any of them, isn’t in fact a pink elephant surfing the cosmic waves. You can ask, but it’s backwards logic. And you really are not just asking. There’s no proof but you are going over and over again this same “question”.

    For someone that seems easily offended, you nevertheless continue to mock my arguments. I only have so much patience for someone that treats me like an idiot Elven.

    Any other kind of reasonable motive goes some way to ruling out a racist motive. Most people kill for a reason, perhaps surprisingly.

    Yeah right. I think it’s soooo easy to be better at understanding, building more consensus, than the Swedes. Seriously, it can’t be done. You can’t have more dialogue than the Swedes. They are famous for it, they really are the best.

    Talk about calling up one stereotype to cover up the failings of another…

    I thought you didn’t like these kinds of ‘blanket’ stereotypes, and that I didn’t need to point out that groups are made up of individual who are ‘different to each other’. So now you are saying that the problems in Sweden are not the faults of Swedes because ‘The Swedes are the best at consensus’. That is all the Swedes, is it?

    Apparently nobody has done it right.

    You are asking the wrong question: is immigration a total success in Europe? There is no answer to that. I used to work with refugees from Latin America in London. They were good people, struggling in a new environment, but many of them were working or studying, trying to adapt to unexpected life circumstances. Many of them had given up furthering their own careers and were rather doing menial work, happy that their children would grow up in some safety compared to circumstances at home. These are normal people. One couple who I set up a health promotion charity with had two children, one of whom has gone to university and the other to college to train to become an engineer. They are good people, and in terms of immigration, they are a success. That is doing it right, and people like you trying to define and win some kind of ‘argument’ on the internet miss these details. Shame.

    Yes, some will fail. But some Finns will fail too. I suppose when you’ve finished with the third world immigrants, you’ll go after them, will you? What’s your solution going to be then I wonder?

    Let’s tighten our immigration policies from the so called the third world countries. Effective, cheap, no risks. Almost perfect.

    Better still, lets take a small intake of refugees and exercise our humanity as a nation. Can’t be that difficult. Just stop hating on third worlders.

    I’ve been an immigrant. I didn’t whine about my feelings when the locals did the things their way.

    Well, nice that you didn’t discover your political activism until foreigners started to exercise theirs. Speaks volumes.

    I didn’t need to get everything in front of me in a silver plate.

    Why was that then? Had a job? A student? Spoke the local language? God forbid that the Gulf Stream doesn’t take a southern dip and we all have to start making our way back to Africa. 😀 Anyhow, this really does illustrate how little you know about what it’s like to be a casualty of war – new country, totally alien language, totally different economic skills base, and even if you overcome these obstacles, you then have the employer obstacle to overcome – sorry, you just don’t fit in! Why take them? Because we can. And because by doing so, we expose ourselves to something ‘other’. Is that something that helps us to grow us a nation, as people? The choice is yours.

    If the man likes giving medals, it’s he’s right.

    Maybe it is. He won’t be the first and he won’t be the last and he probably won’t be the worst. However, inciting violence is a whole different ball game, brother. Whitewash this in the sweet scent of free speech, but it will not remove the stench of incitement to violence and murder. If you think that is acceptable, fine.

    That is not an argument. When I told you WHY we shouldn’t take it anymore seriously, that was an argument, still unmatched.

    Really, your arrogance knows no bounds. Of course if you are setting yourself up as the sole judge about what constitutes a valid argument, I’m not surprised you say there has been no argument to match yours. Your argument is that free speech means that people who feel this way feel brave enough to share their feelings and can be identified and therefore removed from positions of power. However, this is prefaced only on the idea that the individual is stupid enough to share their thoughts in a ‘public’ forum. They are perfectly at liberty to harbour such thoughts in private networks of like-minded individuals. Second, the point was made to you several times that this was more than just ‘stupidity’, and that incitement to violence is something that cannot be defended on the basis of free speech.

    Evidence is better than no evidence. I have not dismissed any evidence in this thread.

    Actually you have done worse, you’ve misinterpreted and misrepresented the evidence. Putnam’s data showed statistically that there was a small increase in mistrust in more diverse communities. You seize on this to suggest that this is cast iron proof that diversity does not work. You give absolutely no consideration to ‘discrimination’ as an explanation, but rather assume that ‘diversity’ is somehow the explanatory variable, when actually that is absolutely not a valid conclusion based on a cross-sectional study. It was not a longitudinal study.

    I have no political stance, no agenda.

    And clearly no training in social sciences. And internet research is not an adequate substitute. Need I say more.

    I have no political stance, no agenda. I look at the evidence and make conclusions. It’s funny that the discussion in this blog are immediately taken to the personal level.

    Actually, I made a conscious choice not to make it personal with you, but you wasted no time in making it personal against me. Your outrage at me providing explanations that you agreed with but nevertheless were offended by because they assumed you to be ignorant was palpable.

    I gave you several arguments why those comments where just stupid, not harmful, mostly because there arguably was more good coming from them than bad.

    And those arguments received rebuttals that you have not even acknowledged, let alone processed.

    And none of this is a response to my basic point. If you are so offended at being called naive, stupid and illinformed, how on earth can you expect immigrants to be sanguine about incitements to violence by immigrants by public officials?

    If you can’t differentiate discussion about the matter and discussion about the persons who discuss the matter, no wonder you are having trouble with your math.

    Because you don’t make it personal, do you?

    You are outraged about the people on this blog saying awful things about racism in Finland. You are so outraged you have written lengthy comments expressing that outrage. You imply you just wanted discussion, but have done nothing to validate your opponents concerns. I mean, nothing. Your argument is that Rautio’s comments are not important, because he’s a nobody, even though he’s a public official and his comments received national exposure. You are saying that immigrants should not take offence or be concerned. And his comments were incendiary, inciting murder and feeding into a counter-jihan discourse that has gained significant ground in Europe and especially Scandinavia. This same discourse played some part in the recent massacre in Norway. But no, you save your outrage for us while all the while saying this ‘bigger picture’ is not relevant.

    So mister “Let’s condemn”, you think that it’s okay to insult people if they express “stupid” views on the subject?

    I have no strong opinion on it. If someone is making some effort at dialogue, I give them the benefit of the doubt. If I think someone shows absolutely no initiative to have dialogue but nevertheless seek to misrepresent my position and that of immigrants or social critics of racism, then I might be tempted to make personal attacks. But really, with you, i have almost 99.9% kept my cool and remained civil. Why? Because you’re a slimy little bastard! 😀

    You might not be agreeing with me but in what world that gives you and your fellow conversationalists the right to call me naive?

    Why are you trying to make me responsible for other people’s comments? This is an open comments forum. I have not called you naive.

    If it’s impossible to discuss in this blog without turning everything personal saying that I have zero knowledge of something (without any knowledge of my knowlege) or that me referring a famous study is naive, then I won’t.

    Fine. My opinion is that you are demanding respect while showing absolutely none. I’ve no sympathy for you.

  54. Joku

    I find it really interesting to follow these discussions, because immigration is one of the factors changing Finnish society. It should be discussed to defuse potential conflicts and also to increase awareness on all sides.

    I often feel that many things that seem to anger people here even further really stem from little cultural differences, not from “real” differences of opinion.

    For one thing, it seems to me that many are angry about the way some (Finns?) have referred to certain people and their actions – eg the PS councilman or the Oulu shooter- as “stupid”.
    I don’t think people have meant to say that these actions were examples of “childish naughtiness” kind of stupidity. I know that when I use that word in these contexts I actually mean “incredibly abominable behavior not worthy of any human being”. I mean the idea is not to convey any kind of lightness of the transgression but rather the-mind-boggles kind of feeling. As in “not worthy of our consideration, as surely no logic or motive can fit the head of such an non-person”

    Also, I think many Finns are left wondering why they -or the politicians – are expected to make public comments about these tragedies we have discussed here lately. I know I am horrified to read these stories – of course I am, I have no need to wonder which side I am on, and surely all people I know would agree. Therefore I personally feel that “everyone” of course agrees on this and therefore there is no need to comment on it. Not because I don’t care – but because there would never be a chance of any sane person suggesting medals being given to these killers. And as a result I feel any politician making a noise about it would be doing it just to get media attention, ie exploiting these tragedies to their own ends.

    Of course I understand how people not sharing this “common silent view” would just find such non-reaction as maybe a sign of quiet agreement. (Just wanted to say that that might not be the intention at all).

    I would find it insulting if someone asked me to take a stand on these cases. Like, are you trying to imply that I would, in a million years, support this Routio-whatever person?

    My point: people’s way of reacting to horrible situations may be different in different cultures. It still doesn’t mean they can’t actually feel the same.

  55. Elven archer

    “For someone that seems easily offended, you nevertheless continue to mock my arguments. I only have so much patience for someone that treats me like an idiot Elven.”

    Prove it. Show the errors in my logic, please. Don’t get personal.

    “Any other kind of reasonable motive goes some way to ruling out a racist motive. Most people kill for a reason, perhaps surprisingly.”

    That Oulu pizzeria killer killed his friend with an axe, if I remember correctly. I don’t think someone like his actions are very reasonable. But never mind. Let’s assume reason. Where that leads us? Unknown reason. So why do you insist that it could have been racism just because there is not proof that it wasn’t. Backwards logic, like I said. It could have been anything, so it’s as useless as pondering about the pink cosmic elephant.

    “So now you are saying that the problems in Sweden are not the faults of Swedes because ‘The Swedes are the best at consensus’.”

    No, but of course you assume I am, which is interesting. I’m glad you are not stereotyping, that would be awful. I’m saying it’s highly probable we can’t do better than the Swedes because they are very, very good at these things. Consensus is their middle name. But like I said, if you don’t share the view, it’s alright. Nobody in the Europe has succeeded. It would be quite arrogant to assume that the Finns can do better in this matter than everybody else (not just Swedes), wouldn’t it?

    I prove it as a valid concern. What have you just said about our problems do deal with these issues? Do you think we are better than none in this matter? “Haha”, and I’m quoting Nelson from the Simpsons. I didn’t think so. So, it’s illogical to assume we could deal with the situation better than them and they have failed. I rest my case.

    “I suppose when you’ve finished with the third world immigrants, you’ll go after them, will you?”

    Oh, that slope is very slippery, indeed… You just can’t help it? Boo! I’m a monster. Of course not. The less fortunated Finns are on the responsibility of the Finns. We can help others too, but we are already living over our budget, and this helping should be efficient. Immigration is highly inefficient means to help the third world countries. We are talking about individuals here, not countries needing help, that’s highly inefficient. I prefer doing much more good with the same money. You’ve got a problem with that?

    “Just stop hating on third worlders.”

    Thank you. You are such a lovely individual who just called me a hater. And I’m the problem, some tell me. Of course.

    “Well, nice that you didn’t discover your political activism until foreigners started to exercise theirs. Speaks volumes.”

    I was invited. I got there, did what they asked me to do, got my cheque and went away. I don’t think they had many people with my expertise, I’m sure otherwise they had used more cheaper local work force and in that case they should have. It’s their country, responsible of their people. I think I helped them. I feel the same about our country. If you’re coming to help us and respect liberal “live and let live” kind of values, welcome.

    “Maybe it is. He won’t be the first and he won’t be the last and he probably won’t be the worst. However, inciting violence is a whole different ball game, brother. Whitewash this in the sweet scent of free speech, but it will not remove the stench of incitement to violence and murder. If you think that is acceptable, fine.”

    Don’t kid me, you made it clear that it isn’t his right or at least it shouldn’t be. I don’t repeat again my unmatched arguments (because nobody has even tried to counter them) why his words did more good than harm. Well, very quickly: 1) a vent 2) now we know him 3) his comments got people together to say “unacceptable” or “stupid” (that was the spirit even in the Hommaforum)

    “However, this is prefaced only on the idea that the individual is stupid enough to share their thoughts in a ‘public’ forum. ”

    And if he isn’t, taking away the freedom of the speech still isn’t helping. That only makes sure that the person hides his feelings. That won’t take away his feelings though. But when everybody puts those comments down, that even might. If you think something and nobody corrects you because nobody knows what you’re even thinking you won’t change your mind. The only way is that something outside of you affects your thinking. That’s why it’s so important to be able to say aloud also the stupid and offending things.

    “Second, the point was made to you several times that this was more than just ‘stupidity’, and that incitement to violence is something that cannot be defended on the basis of free speech.”

    Why? That makes it an argument, otherwise it is just a claim. There was no why, just a claim you just described. I just presented an argument how and why it can be defended.

    “Actually you have done worse, you’ve misinterpreted and misrepresented the evidence.”

    No, I did not. I presented you a quote which says it all. If you want to blame someone, blame Putnam.

    “And clearly no training in social sciences. And internet research is not an adequate substitute. Need I say more.”

    No. I get it. You like to get personal. What a gentleman you are. You are! I have a lot to learn about your culture.

    “Actually, I made a conscious choice not to make it personal with you, but you wasted no time in making it personal against me. Your outrage at me providing explanations that you agreed with but nevertheless were offended by because they assumed you to be ignorant was palpable.”

    The last part, I don’t get it. My English, not so good. But of course. It was I who made it personal like everybody can see from above from your quotes.

    “And those arguments received rebuttals that you have not even acknowledged, let alone processed.”

    Yes, it’s me again getting personal like everybody can see. There were no counter arguments, only saying “it ain’t so”, “are you so naive”. I guess I am…

    “If you are so offended at being called naive, stupid and illinformed, how on earth can you expect immigrants to be sanguine about incitements to violence by immigrants by public officials?”

    How offended? I’m not suing you. I’m not calling politicians to help me. I’m not demanding laws to shut you up. I’m just saying I won’t be part of this obviously very civilized discussion here and I believe it’s in my rights to do so. I think the discussion would be better progressed if we talked about the matter and not insulting people discussing. I have not said a single insult even though I’ve being insulted from the almost very beginning. What’s your score?

    “Because you don’t make it personal, do you?”

    It was your calculation. You accusing me. Considering that my response was very patient and to the point. You mixed them up so I corrected you. I’m sorry if I offended you. It was not my purpose.

    “You are outraged about the people on this blog saying awful things about racism in Finland. You are so outraged you have written lengthy comments expressing that outrage.”

    I must have a wrong dictionary. I have written patiently lengthy responses keeping my cool under insults. Is that what the outraged people usually do? Man, if that’s your definition, it’s no wonder you are so concerned about people like me. It certainly does explain a lot about this blog. Relax, man!

    “You imply you just wanted discussion, but have done nothing to validate your opponents concerns. I mean, nothing.”

    Besides constantly saying nobody needs to be afraid. I refer to my now hopefully well known arguments and to the fact that I at least twice said that even the infamous Hommaforum made it clear that most of them found the comments about medals very distasteful and stupid (pardon my limited language skills, stupid is the word I use often). If that is a problem, I’ll gladly switch to Finnish, if you like? My Finnish is really quite good.

    “Your argument is that Rautio’s comments are not important, because he’s a nobody, even though he’s a public official and his comments received national exposure.”

    Exposure which unanimously condemned his words, a bad thing?

    “Because you’re a slimy little bastard! :D”

    Thanks for the smiley face. It warms my cold heart.

    “Why are you trying to make me responsible for other people’s comments? This is an open comments forum. I have not called you naive.”

    Actually you have, but not in those words.

    “Fine. My opinion is that you are demanding respect while showing absolutely none. I’ve no sympathy for you.”

    Well that is is good dialogue. It seems I presented my case too well. Maybe it caused some frustration? Remember that things argue, people don’t. Although this conversation is trying very hard to convince me otherwise.

  56. Elven archer

    “I don’t think people have meant to say that these actions were examples of “childish naughtiness” kind of stupidity.”

    I think they mean both and I should know for myself. While I think the famous medals certainly reflect the attitudes of the person behind them, I also think they are not to be taken too literally. Some people are really frustrated mostly because of the media and the politics who have taken a strong stance against the PS and against the immigration policy critics. They are frustrated that while the problems are there so boldly to everyone to see (no thanks to media!), nothing much happens. Everything goes the same. They just watch the same mistakes being made than in the rest of the Europe ahead of us. Some people just get that frustration out… stupidly… but it’s better that way considering the alternative, the suppression of feelings until they explode. Let them vent, we will set them straight showing them the errors in their thinking. The silent types could be worse. If nobody knows what’s on your mind, how can anyone do anything about it?

    That’s why it’s so freaking important to be able say aloud also disgusting things. It you can’t see it, you can’t do anything about it, but it’s still there somewhere. If you do see it, you can react to it.

    The only problem seems to be that people like Mark or Enrique don’t trust us. Don’t trust us at all. Who was that fellow again… Putnam… I think he said… 😀 Mark & co. are afraid that it doesn’t take much more (than a stupid comment meaning both childish and distasteful) to get us to go find our pitchforks, torches and ropes and then it’s like from the Simpsons’ movie. I’m trying to ease their fears but they don’t trust me!

    That’s irony, folks!

  57. Elven archer

    “And as a result I feel any politician making a noise about it would be doing it just to get media attention, ie exploiting these tragedies to their own ends.”

    That is a fine observation. In Finnish culture it really is like that. We have our own ways to deal with tragedies. If some politician opens his mouth, it’s quite easy to get a reaction: “Stop trying to ride this tragedy to your benefit”. Our politicians need to be, and are, very careful about that. Maybe in some other cultures that is interpreted as being indifferent but we are not in those other cultures here, so…

  58. Mark

    Elven

    They are frustrated that while the problems are there so boldly to everyone to see (no thanks to media!), nothing much happens. Everything goes the same. They just watch the same mistakes being made than in the rest of the Europe ahead of us. Some people just get that frustration out… stupidly… but it’s better that way considering the alternative, the suppression of feelings until they explode.

    Your an apologist for inhumanity and racism.

  59. Mark

    Elven

    The only problem seems to be that people like Mark or Enrique don’t trust us. Don’t trust us at all. Who was that fellow again… Putnam… I think he said… 😀 Mark & co. are afraid that it doesn’t take much more (than a stupid comment meaning both childish and distasteful) to get us to go find our pitchforks, torches and ropes and then it’s like from the Simpsons’ movie. I’m trying to ease their fears but they don’t trust me!

    I love the way you have created a ‘them’ and ‘us’ in this dialogue. You repeatedly position us as the ‘foreigners’ who misunderstand Finnish culture, and us foreigners not trusting YOU FINNS. Can you see the hegemonic narrative you are constructing?

    Frankly, I have no problem trusting the vast majority of Finns. You have your own position to defend here Elven and your own agenda, anti-immigration. In creating that position, you have lots of negative stuff to say about diversity and about foreign cultures. You set yourself up in judgment of other cultures and then balk at even the smallest criticisms of your own culture or opinions.

    And while you mock the idea that immigrants would feel any sense of insecurity, there have been three deaths in suspicious circumstances and mystery about the motives except the flat denials that it had anything to do with racism.

    Reassurance costs nothing. Sorry that it hurts your pride to give it.

  60. Mark

    Elven

    The only problem seems to be that people like Mark or Enrique don’t trust us. Don’t trust us at all. Who was that fellow again… Putnam… I think he said… 😀 Mark & co. are afraid that it doesn’t take much more (than a stupid comment meaning both childish and distasteful) to get us to go find our pitchforks, torches and ropes and then it’s like from the Simpsons’ movie. I’m trying to ease their fears but they don’t trust me!

    I love the way you have created a ‘them’ and ‘us’ in this dialogue. You repeatedly position us as the ‘foreigners’ who misunderstand Finnish culture, and us foreigners not trusting YOU FINNS. Can you see the hegemonic narrative you are constructing?

    Frankly, I have no problem trusting the vast majority of Finns. You have your own position to defend here Elven and your own agenda, anti-immigration. In creating that position, you have lots of negative stuff to say about diversity and about foreign cultures. You set yourself up in judgment of other cultures and then balk at even the smallest criticisms of your own culture or opinions.

    And while you mock the idea that immigrants would feel any sense of insecurity, there have been three deaths in suspicious circumstances and mystery about the motives except the flat denials that it had anything to do with racism.

    Reassurance costs nothing. Sorry that it hurts your pride to give it.

  61. Mark

    Elven

    Prove it. Show the errors in my logic, please. Don’t get personal.

    For starters, you don’t practice what you preach, Elven. Second, you have shown me no indication that you are able to see errors pointed out in your logic. For example, it was pointed out to you that Putnam’s data was cross-sectional and so your dismissal of his personal conclusion that the phenomenon was short-term, i.e. reflected current levels of trust that could be improved through shared civic action, as being against his data was flatly incorrect. It was not a longitudinal survey. However, although this was pointed out to you, you still refused to concede anything.

    I know your sort Elven. Full of your own intellectual exuberance and confident you can ‘defeat’ any argument put up to you. You say ‘don’t get personal’, well, to some extent that is impossible, because it is our personalities that go some way to defining how this conversation goes.

    I don’t think someone like his actions are very reasonable.

    Maybe this is your English. To say something is open to being rationalised is not the same as saying it’s reasonable.

    So why do you insist that it could have been racism just because there is not proof that it wasn’t.

    Well, so far, there is no evidence at all about the motive. However, he was a Finn, the Pizza workers were immigrants, he doesn’t seem to have any grievance with them before, so why shoot them? Calling it insane is fine, but it’s not an explanation. It’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether this was racism, though I accept not an easy question to answer. But you know, my beef with you is that I cannot even ask that question without being accused of all sorts.

    I’m saying it’s highly probable we can’t do better than the Swedes because they are very, very good at these things.

    And who is stereotyping? If you think the generalised stereotype of Swedes being good at concensus is enought to offset racism in Sweden, or the very real problems of marginalisation, inadequate resources etc., then you are very much naive. Sweden has very much the same problems as any modern democracy, including its own disaffected youth, with a quarter of 15-25 year olds unemployed. This really is a stupid argument to have with you, if you think this kind of argumentation has any credibility whatsoever.

    This is pointless.

  62. Farang

    Mark: “Well, so far, there is no evidence at all about the motive. However, he was a Finn, the Pizza workers were immigrants, he doesn’t seem to have any grievance with them before, so why shoot them?”

    Wonderful logic here 😀 If someone shoots someone he hasn’t had any grievance earlier, then the reason must be racism 🙂

    What if the pizza workers would have been Finnish? And still the shooter hadn’t had any grievance with them? What the reasons would be then.

    A person who thinks that racism might be the motive ONLY based on the skin colour if the guilty/victim person, is a racist himself. Be honest to yourself. You make assumptions based on ethnic background. If that’s not racism, then what is?

  63. Mark

    Elven

    Don’t kid me, you made it clear that it isn’t his right or at least it shouldn’t be.

    I’m not kidding anyone. People should not be ‘free’ to incite violence or racial hatred without sanction. Prison is harsh and removing their liberty certainly turns then into martyrs. I would fine them heavily. This is not an easy area, and deciding what is incitement is notoriously difficult, but that doesnt’ mean we shouldn’t do it. I’m glad to say that the majority of Finnish lawmakers are of the same opinion. Go argue with them if you don’t like it.

    Your arguments about the benefits of Rautio being ‘exposed’ have been countered. You simply have not paid attention or dismissed the arguments, including completely invalidating the need to take the ‘confindence’ of immigrants into account, and ignoring the issue of just how deep do these kinds of opinions go in PS. But you are not interested in discussing that, I’m sure.

    And if he isn’t, taking away the freedom of the speech still isn’t helping. That only makes sure that the person hides his feelings.

    This is not a good argument. This is pure sophistry. First, people sharing their feelings does not necessarily lead to ‘catharsis’. In other words, it is just as likely to increase their sense of grievance, especially if their ‘feelings’ are validated by others of like mind. Second, sharing those feelings of grievance has the strong possibility of spreading the sense of grievance, especially if the ‘feelings’ are justified by spurious statistics or sensationalist headlines. Third, why is it that you completely dismiss the ‘feelings’ of immigrants, and yet when it comes to racists excercising free speech, suddenly you are all for this kind of public emotional expression? Fourth, the consequences of him sharing his feelings is to spread fear among immigrants. Now you have a choice about that: you can mock immigrants, call them stupid or whatever, or you can reassure. Now if you are all for this kind of emotional understandign when it comes to justifying the hate speech of racists, why can you not extend that understanding to immigrants who talk of feeling under threat?

    You like to get personal. What a gentleman you are. You are! I have a lot to learn about your culture.

    Yeah, sure. So, pointing out your obvious lack of real academic skills is getting personal is it. Good. Confirms what was pretty obvious anyway. I’ll tell you what it says about my culture, Elven, it tells that we can spot a fraud when we see one!

    I think the discussion would be better progressed if we talked about the matter and not insulting people discussing.

    I agree, but you certainly don’t practice what you preach.

    I must have a wrong dictionary. I have written patiently lengthy responses keeping my cool under insults. Is that what the outraged people usually do? Man, if that’s your definition, it’s no wonder you are so concerned about people like me. It certainly does explain a lot about this blog. Relax, man!

    😀 you are something else. You have complained and complained about how you are being treated on this blog. And yet you came here with an aggressive attitude, stupid this, stupid that. You only wanted to present the world with your amazing theory of how the Rautio comments becoming public was actually a GOOD thing for Finland, irrespective of what immigrants ACTUALLY feel about it. Nope, you are here to tell us what we should all think and feel, oh, and that’s called free speech, by the way. And when we refuse to toe the line, well, we are just those stupid foreigners and you are defender of Finland’s good reputation. What a lofty position you assign yourself

    Besides constantly saying nobody needs to be afraid.

    And that is called validation? Hmmm. First rule of validation, don’t tell people what to feel.

    even the infamous Hommaforum made it clear that most of them found the comments about medals very distasteful

    Good. Glad to hear it. Shame you didn’t make that the centre of your pitch, because you would have got a lot more mileage on here with your opinions if you had started out with that.

    I have no problem with Hommaforum. It attracts some idiots for sure, but it also serves as a platform for skeptics. I would say that I am a skeptic by nature too, so I see plenty of possibilty for common ground. But I do think they operate according to a rather funny notion, i.e. skeptical about immigration. It’s a bit like saying one is skeptical about childbirth!

    Human migration has been such a fundamental feature of human societies that it is almost impossible to imagine a world without it. Many tens of thousands of Finns emmigrate from Finland every year. Of course, what they really mean is they are ‘skeptical about immigration/assylum seeking from third world countries/Muslim countries/conflict zones’. And this for me is absolutely a failure of their humanity. Because people trying to get out of these zones are often the most vulnerable. Not always, but often. They are a population like any other, and a displaced population faces many many challenges. A new home in the West or Finland might seem on paper like a good thing, but when they are met with this ‘skepticism’, I really think that insult has been added to injury.

    Exposure which unanimously condemned his words, a bad thing?

    Look, you really believe in this idea of yours, don’t you? But you show a very worrying lack of self-criticality. I mean, could you even begin to deconstruct your own thinking here, or are you so convinced of the merits of your insight that all your energies must go to communicating them to the world?

    First, it wasn’t unanimous. Privately, some Finns were saying it was just a joke that backfired. Or like you say, just stupid, without acknowledging the rather more sinister elements of counter-Jihad narrative. It wasn’t simply about metaphorically giving someone a medal for killing an immigrant, it was about the whole notion of WAR. I’ve no problem someone calling it stupid, but I’d also like for people to be open to acknowledging that it was more than stupid, that there was a very powerful and growing narrative of counter-Jihad behind his words. The most recent violent expression of that in the Nordic countries left nearly a hundred innocent people dead. Are people’s memories so short?

    That is real context. So why are people so offended what parallels are drawn with this wider context? Maybe you know Finnish society better than foreigners to the extent that you can claim there is nothing to be afraid of. But if in the same breath you deny the context or the narrative that is being constructed, then your ‘comfort’ (that’s a stretch) is going to seem very half-hearted. Likewise, it is important that you step out of your own position for just a fraction of a second and put yourself in the shoes of somene that does not have access to the forums or social networks that you have had all your life and which informs your sense of perspective. In fact, maybe a person like you is in a very good position to reassure foreigners, but while you speak ONLY from your own perspective, you have failed miserably to include a sense of real humanity into your many reasonings and rationalisations.

    Second, the condemnation was also followed by condemnation towards any foreigner who for even a second expressed some sense of outrage. In other words, we were accused of being political opportunists for simply telling about our own fears about the narrative he was feeding into, a counter-Jihad narrative.

    Third, your idea that his exposure and political excommunication will bring his activities to an end is sadly short-sighted. Seppo Lehto was imprisoned and happily adopts the position of martyr to free speech at every turn. This could be just the kind of national platform he would like. After all, he failed to get into parliament this time around. Even you are supporting his right to ‘free speech’, so indirectly, his comments are further disseminated. Is that a good thing? Not in my book. Of all the freedoms we try to protect, and you want to preserve the freedom to direct incitement of violence against immigrants. What does that say? I mean, there are so many good causes in this world. And if you think that free speech is really that under threat, then I wonder what on earth you make of your opportunity to come on blogs like this and write at length.

    The most important failing in your ‘logic’ was that it was ethnocentric in the extreme. That is perhaps something you are unable and certainly unwilling to accept, or, alternatively, you will turn it around and celebrate your own ignorance under the banner of ‘when in Rome…’

    Do I think you have insight? Not really. You have a knack for spin, but not for real analysis. That’s not to say that one day your perspective might not broaden, but I dread to think the size of the carpets of prejudice you will have laid along the way. Prejudice? Yes, prejudice. You bias your own cultural perspective above all others. Natural enough, we all do. But someone only starts to be free of prejudice when they make the conscious decision to try to step outside of that frame. All you have to do is be open, and not to mock. Because if you go in there with all the attitude of an arrogant soldier out to dispense some good old Finnish wisdom, then you will not even begin to see the world that lies beyond your own. I say that in all sincerity. I’m sure you have your qualities as a human being.

  64. Mark

    Farang

    Wonderful logic here 😀 If someone shoots someone he hasn’t had any grievance earlier, then the reason must be racism 🙂

    You are using the word ‘must’, not me.

  65. Mark

    Farang

    What if the pizza workers would have been Finnish? And still the shooter hadn’t had any grievance with them? What the reasons would be then.

    But they weren’t, were they. Do have another case where this happened to be true? Even insane people usually operate by some kind of logic.

    A person who thinks that racism might be the motive ONLY based on the skin colour if the guilty/victim person, is a racist himself.

    Do you mean to say that someone who sees race is a racist, because race doesn’t exist?

    Well, it doesn’t quite work like that. There are several things here:

    a) a belief that a person has that some races are better than others
    b) knowledge that there exist some people who have a belief that some races are better.

    The first is racism. The second is knowledge that racism exists. They are not the same thing.

    If you have knowledge of racism, then you also have some idea about the circumstances in which racism can exist or can govern actions.

    Racism is fed by hatred, anger, mistrust and a ‘war’ mentality. These same emotions can give rise to various forms of violence, from physical and verbal abuse, to murder.

    Therefore, any situation in which an immigrant experiences violence is potentially a situation in which racism was the ’cause’ of the violence.

    Identifying such possible circumstance is applying knowledge of racism.

    Applying knowledge of racism is not proof of racism. (before you suggest that I think it is)

    Be honest to yourself. You make assumptions based on ethnic background. If that’s not racism, then what is?

    What is racism? Well, it is the belief that some races (and nowadays ethnicities) are inherrantly ‘better’. It is attaching negative characteristics that can only be individual, mediated by culture and belief, to entire ethnic groups and thereby creating stigma and discrimination.

    As an example, people are not robots who enact their culture without choice. Criminality is to a large extent an action that is chosen. It is therefore an indivdual characteristic. Circumstances and culture can make crime more or loss attractive, for several reasons.

    Respecting people’s free will means accepting that they are not puppets of their culture. Likewise, an ethnicity is not invalidated because some individuals or leaders have chosen to do awful things. Germans are not denied the right to be German and to be proud Germans because some of their ancestors or leaders made heinous choices.

    In other words, there is no justification for racism. I hope this helps.

  66. Farang

    Mark: “Do you mean to say that someone who sees race is a racist, because race doesn’t exist?”

    No, sorry my English and there was a typo also 🙂

    I meant to say that someone who sees race as a reason or cause for something, is a racist.

    • Migrant Tales

      –I meant to say that someone who sees race as a reason or cause for something, is a racist.

      Some call it colorblind racism. If you claim that somebody is a “racist” because he thinks race or ethnicity may have played a role, I wouldn’t classify that as racism. it’s a bit like stating that their “age racism.” Such a term does not exist because racism has to do with race, or ethnicity as we call it in Europe.

  67. Farang

    So in this case, just to make clear what I mean:

    CAUSE: Race of the pizza worker and shooter
    ACTION: You thinking that there might have been racial motives

    In other words, I see a person racist if he thinks that there might be racist motives for the crime only based on the fact that guilty and victim were of different race.

  68. Farang

    No, I don’t think someone is racist if he thinks race or ethnicity may have played a role. But if he thinks only this BECAUSE a person is of certain race, then that thinking is racist.

    I give you an example:

    Person A sees person B sitting on a bench, and thinks:
    1) That person could be stupid
    2) That person could be stupid, because he is black

    Case 1 is not racist thinking, but case 2 is. Do you understand now what I mean?

    Making that kind of assumptions based on persons skin colour is racist thinking.

  69. Mark

    Farang

    Racism is not simply about ‘seeing’ or believing in races, when non exist, although this can be the root of racism, racist attitudes also imply that some races are inherantly better than others. In today’s world, race blurs into ethnicity, but the root and effect is the same. Our team is better than your team.

    What you seem to be suggesting is that the following are one and the same thing, i.e. racism =

    1) saying he is stupid JUST because he was black.
    2) assuming that it was racism JUST because he was black.

    But, although these look similar, they are not the same thing.

    In the first instance, the fact the person was black is supposed to have caused his stupidity. This is either true or false. It cannot be both.

    In the second instance, the motive for a killing is assumed to be racism because the victim was black. This could be either true or false. If it is false, then the assumption about the motive is incorrect. But as racism can be motive for violence, and it’s not racist to recognise that fact, and it’s not racism to be wrong about the motive. However, if you arrive at the motive only as a result of the colour of the perpetrator, then that is racist. The colour of the victim is irrelevant in this case, because you are either right that it was the motive or you are wrong and you have not decided it because you think all whites are racist killers, but because racism is a plausible motive in this case.

    What would be racist would be to assume the killer killed the black person because the killer was white.

    I.e. All whites are racists. He is white, he is a racist. All racists are killers. He is a racist, so he is a killer. Also, he is white, so he is a killer.

    That is racist.

    Now look at these:

    a) he killed the man because he was black
    b) he killed the man because he was white

    They look identifical, except for the colour. This is where Farang (and many many others) get stuck.

    Let’s put in more information:

    a) he killed the man because he (the victim) was black
    b) he killed the man because he (the killer) was white

    Are they both still racist? Yes. But there is a crucial difference, one describes a racist act (a), the other is a racist statement (b). These are not the same thing.

    Do racist acts happen? Yes. Is it racist to be believe that racist acts happen? No. So believing a) does not make one a racist. It might make one wrong, however, on a factual basis.

    What makes you a racist is believing b) regardless of what you think of a).

    You could however claim a) because you believed in b). That would make it a racist conclusion, irrespective of whether you were rigth or wrong. This is what Farang is suggesting. However, you can assert a) without believing in b) and not be a racist.

    As I don’t believe in b), I do not consider myself a racist.

  70. Elven archer

    “Your an apologist for inhumanity and racism.”

    It’s the opposite like I argued. It’s pure logic. The freedom of speech is needed to battle inhumanity and racism like I explained very thoroughly. You can’t have human rights if you can’t say aloud your opinions because of fear. I’m an immigration policies critic because I am against racism.

  71. Elven archer

    “I love the way you have created a ‘them’ and ‘us’ in this dialogue. You repeatedly position us as the ‘foreigners’ who misunderstand Finnish culture, and us foreigners not trusting YOU FINNS.”

    No, only the ones like you and Enrique. And I’m referring to the things you’ve said, not your background. Things you’ve said about the Finns and the Finnish culture. I actually didn’t even remember to think you as foreigners, I just though you are clueless like some member of the local Green party. Or is it red nowadays or the red-green party?

  72. Mark

    Elven

    Anti-immigrationists do not have a monopoly on libertarianism or free speech.

    It’s the opposite like I argued. It’s pure logic. The freedom of speech is needed to battle inhumanity and racism like I explained very thoroughly. You can’t have human rights if you can’t say aloud your opinions because of fear. I’m an immigration policies critic because I am against racism.

    Your ‘thorough’ explanation was far from thorough. Your idea of an explanation is to look only at one side of an issue. Maybe if you showed some ability to properly and objectively process the arguments of your critics, I’d have more respect for your intellectual abilities.

    I’m an immigration policies critic because I am against racism.

    You know, in spite of what you might think my opinion is of you, I do actually believe you in this instance.

    However, I do think you are misguided, at least on notions of what constitutes a constructive approach to the issue.

    Also, do you agree with Farang’s conceptualising of me as a racist on this thread? If you do, then I can see that you probably are biased to ‘seeing’ racism in anti-racists. If you don’t, there might be hope for you yet 😀

  73. Mark

    No, only the ones like you and Enrique. And I’m referring to the things you’ve said, not your background. Things you’ve said about the Finns and the Finnish culture. I actually didn’t even remember to think you as foreigners, I just though you are clueless like some member of the local Green party. Or is it red nowadays or the red-green party?

    Well, the effect is the same. And now you have me as a ‘green’? lol.

    I have very few political allegiances.

    So, what did you not like that I have said about Finns and Finnish culture? Not Enrique, but me. I’ve already put up with reams of protest in your posts to me because someone else called you naive. 😀

    Having said that, I agree with them, though. You clealry are naive. Sorry to be personal, but you clearly went out of your way yesterday to make it personal with me. Also, your comments on Sweden’s ability to find consensus and their ‘failure’ to eradicate racism or social problems in Sweden wase a classic example of the generalisations and blandness of dinner table politics.

  74. Elven archer

    “You have your own position to defend here Elven and your own agenda, anti-immigration.”

    No. My only agenda is against racism, against the violation of human rights and against intolerant values and so on. Better immigration policy is not my goal, it is only means, a mere tool.

    Did you know that yesterday certain countries marched out of the UN meeting to protest the meetings’ agenda to discuss and defend the rights of the sexual minorities? Pakistan’s representative said according to the news that islam forbids promiscuity and therefore you can’t accept the legalizing of homosexuality. I am strongly against that kind of thinking, that kind of values.

  75. Mark

    Elven

    I am strongly against that kind of thinking, that kind of values.

    Good to hear. 😀

    No. My only agenda is against racism, against the violation of human rights and against intolerant values and so on. Better immigration policy is not my goal, it is only means, a mere tool.

    It is good to hear what you stand up for. That is a lot better than hearing you argue why immigrants should chill out about racism in Finland.

  76. Elven archer

    “For example, it was pointed out to you that Putnam’s data was cross-sectional”

    Thanks for reminding me. I showed your mistake with Putnam’s own words and wondered if you can admit your mistake. Mysteriously you didn’t even answer. I am sure you just forgot, so I remind you:

    ““His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups.”

    “Putnam has been criticized for the lag between his initial study and his publication of his article. In 2006, Putnam was quoted in the Financial Times as saying he had delayed publishing the article until he could “develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity””

    Do you now understand what is the finding, the conclusion of the study? And what is the Putnam’s suggestion how to deal with the problem the study showed? There’s a clear difference. One is a fact backed up with huge amounts of information, one is his visions, his hopes and dreams which are not backed up by any data. The guy loves diversity and has spend his whole life speaking for it, so he’s in a really tight spot when his own study showed him wrong. But! I also like very very much diversity! I just disagree with the means how to get there.

    I just can’t find a value in the words of for example that Pakistan’s representative. And because the values and norms of a society are formed of the values of the people living there… Need I say more? If that Pakistan’s representative decided to move here with his attitudes, would that make our society more or less tolerant? 😉

  77. Elven archer

    “It is good to hear what you stand up for.”

    You really need to understand this if you want to really, really know what’s going on. This is the basic problem in this whole debate. And by saying debate I mean this whole discussion about immigrant policies in Finland in general. A lot of us so called critics are for tolerance, for liberal kind of values and against bigotry, racism and inequality. But, and now pay attention carefully please, we have different thinking about the means how to get there. Different means than you for example, I think it is safe to say? It is as simple as that.

    Yes, there are some critics who are quite opposite than me. They are against the immigration because their conservative thinking but even the majority of them draw the line somewhere, they also are against for example the values of the religious extremists. But still, it may look like the conservative critics and liberals like me are on the same side, and we are regarding the means, but our goals are the opposite. It’s quite ironic, really.

    If you accept this, you take a huge leap in understanding the whole phenomenon. Some never accept it. People like them can’t accept for example that the cultures are different, that some are more… let’s say…. have more modern values than the others. If you can’t accept that kind of reality and the fact that the values and behavioral norms of the society are build from the values of the individuals, you can’t accept pure and solid logic behind my words. Cognitive dissonance does that do you (I’m trying to form a passive sentence here).

  78. Elven archer

    First, people sharing their feelings does not necessarily lead to ‘catharsis’. In other words, it is just as likely to increase their sense of grievance, especially if their ‘feelings’ are validated by others of like mind. Second, sharing those feelings of grievance has the strong possibility of spreading the sense of grievance, especially if the ‘feelings’ are justified by spurious statistics or sensationalist headlines. Third, why is it that you completely dismiss the ‘feelings’ of immigrants, and yet when it comes to racists excercising free speech, suddenly you are all for this kind of public emotional expression? Fourth, the consequences of him sharing his feelings is to spread fear among immigrants.

    That is bullshit at it’s pure form. When I heard the comments about the medal, I condemned them. Still it’s his right to say that. When I heard you concerns about the comments, I tried to ease your fears. Still it’s your right to say. I’m not saying to anybody that they should not talk. I don’t demand that the law forbids anybody to talk. I have been perfectly consistent.

    First, not necessarily but it’s possible. Not talking, not possible. It’s just probabilities. Psychological studies mostly suggest that not talking gets you to trouble sooner or later. Talking might help, not talking certainly not because then there’s nobody to correct your thinking, helping you to understand better.

    Second, your “strong possibility” just proves that you really don’t trust the Finns thinking us so childish. Medals, you say? Wow, let’s all go and get our pitchforks? No. We are not that childish. Those comments just increased the sympathy for the immigrants after the shooting. Think about it. People already felt bad about unnecessary deaths, about the tragedy. Then somebody says the opposite. Of course that only makes people feel more bad, somebody belittling the deaths (and they feelings at the same time). It’s basic psychology, really. Think about some big catastrophe, some earthquake for example, tens of thousands killed. People are shocked. Then some brainiac steps forward and says: “They got what they deserved”. How do people react to that? They are angry to someone saying that stupid and insensitive thing and feel even more bad for the dead.

    What about your own words? People are jumping out of the windows because of fear, for god’s (anyone of them, even the pink elephant one) sake. Do you think it’s very useful to spread your concerns that there’s something seriously wrong in here? Do people need to be more afraid? How is that helping?

    You mentioned statistics. They are very clear about there issues, about the suspects of hate crimes and so on. It really doesn’t backup the theory that the Finns have more issues about the ethnicity than most, does it? But you are strongly against the idea that the Finns have the right to be afraid? Double standards… For example Seura magazine revealed the police statistics about rape cases in Espoo in 2007 (or was it 2008?) and according to it almost 70 % were of immigrant doing. Was that a reason to be afraid? Norwegian television said that in a five year period 83/86 assault rapes in Oslo were committed by a non-western man. Is that a valid cause for concern, for fear? I’ve been told not. I’ve been told it’s racist to even ask. But it’s not racist to be afraid of the Finns in Finland when there’s two incidents?

    Third, I don’t dismiss the feelings. I try to ease the fears. But hey, if you rather be afraid, do that if you like. Would it be better if I said the opposite? That seems to be the only answer you would accept. I don’t how that would help your feelings though.

    Fourth, yes yes. But if a Finn said he’s worried what kind of religious extremists with attitudes could come here because of immigrant policies, you would say him a islamophobe. That you should not generalize. Like you already did. Instead you are asking how come this man got “so far” in the politics? (In a town like that you need maybe 20-100 votes, your family, a few friends, someone voting at random voting for the party etc.) What that says about PS. I’m happy that it is not generalizing. When the man revealed his attitudes, he got sacked, what that says about PS? Try to understand that hiding attitudes under the surface won’t take they away. Buy a blindfold, so you don’t have to be afraid, because isn’t that your logic? If nobody says anything do you think there’s no people who don’t like immigrants? So it’s quite illogical to be afraid because of his words.

  79. Elven archer

    “And yet you came here with an aggressive attitude, stupid this, stupid that.”

    I called Rautio’s comments stupid. I’m sorry if you feel that too harsh an attitude. If you like to call them not-stupid comments, it’s your right. I personally would not ever defend the man’s attitude.

    “And when we refuse to toe the line, well, we are just those stupid foreigners and you are defender of Finland’s good reputation. What a lofty position you assign yourself”

    No, you did. I haven’t call you any names besides a gentleman. But I’m starting to think I was wrong. The language you are using is quite offensive. You are very rude to me and just because I don’t agree with you on certain matters.

  80. Elven archer

    “Good. Glad to hear it. Shame you didn’t make that the centre of your pitch, because you would have got a lot more mileage on here with your opinions if you had started out with that.”

    I did. But you lost it because I used the word “stupid” which you didn’t like at all. And because I patiently explained how the freedom of speech is more important and so on. You know, EU is for the freedom of speech. They have ruled that it also means you can say stupid and offending things. I’m actually more afraid of people who try to take away the freedom of speech than people like Rautio. They are the really scary bunch, the mind police punishing you from the wrong opinions. That’s scary as hell. The history shows that. That is the one thing linking together all the tyrannies there ever was that they didn’t allow any thinking which was not parallel to the official stand.

  81. Elven archer

    “They are a population like any other, and a displaced population faces many many challenges. A new home in the West or Finland might seem on paper like a good thing, but when they are met with this ‘skepticism’, I really think that insult has been added to injury.”

    Of course. A population like any other. Is it the ground itself then? I mean the earth, the nature? Shouldn’t we transfer everybody here to solve everything? That should work because there’s no differences. Their society doesn’t reflect the values and norms of the people living there because, like you said, they are like any other. What if we swap the populations, would Finland still be the same and the other country as well? It should based on your logic. So it’s obvious we shouldn’t control the immigration, just let everybody in 🙂

  82. Mark

    Let’s get Putnam out the way.

    Thanks for reminding me. I showed your mistake with Putnam’s own words and wondered if you can admit your mistake. Mysteriously you didn’t even answer. I am sure you just forgot, so I remind you:

    ““His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups.”

    Actually, you answered one question by asking another. My point was that Putnam’s interpretation of his data was it needed to be followed up because it was only a ‘snap-shot’ and did not take account of dynamics of change. In other words, it used cross-sectionalal data, though being such a large comparative data set, it was stronger than your usual cross-sectional data set. In Putnam’s own words in the published summary:

    Exploring the dynamics, as opposed to the comparative statics, of diversity and social capital requires entirely different methods, and my research group has only begun to explore those avenues.

    In other words, your assertion that his view that the long term picture was different was not contradicted by his data, but actually requires a total different kind of study, i.e. longitudinal studies.

    Now rather than accept this obvious point, you went on to ask me about the lag between his initital survey and the publication of his analysis of the data. First, Putnam’s treatment of the data was exhaustive. He used several forms of data analysis to explore all the nuances of contact theory and conflict theory and to rule out various alternative explanations. That clearly took time. In Finland, it regularly takes 5 or 6 years for some complex data sets to be properly analysed, even though many leading journals usually demand that data sets are no more than 2 years old (e.g. BMJ)

    So, like i said, rather than accede the point, you threw another irrelevant question into the mix. Not only that, but you seem to be a bit confused about the relationship of data to interpretation. In academic literature, the data is provided, the researchers must offer an analysis and to some extent explanations of the data set in addition to its limitations. Without this analysis and relating the data to the existing field of knowledge, a paper is incomplete. The conclusions, whether speculative or not, must be consistent with the data, or else the paper is rejected at peer review or more likely a rewrite is requested by the editor.

    So you assertion that his conclusions, as detailed above, on the dynamic or long-term effects are not inconsistent with his own hypothesis. Your unwillingness or inability to grasp this fact leaves me to feel that a) you do not know how to objectively assess criticisms of your own position, and b) your knowledge of scientific and social science methodology is that of a layman.

    As I pointed out to you, the data do not ‘predict’ that diversity creates a lack of trust, because that kind of conclusion cannot be made from cross-sectional data. It can however be taken as a good description of the current state of diversity and communal trust in the US. Or to put it in Putnam’s own words:

    Many Americans today are uncomfortable with diversity.

    Finally, if you think that his interpretations were irrelevant to the data set, then again, I will leave you with his own words:

    Thus, my comments in the final third of this article are necessarily preliminary. However, these ideas are, I believe, crucial to any final interpretation of our ‘comparative statics’ evidence.

    I’m not going over this ground again, Elven. If you don’t understand it, I suggest you do some studies.

  83. Elven archer

    The following quote is from the demonstration in Helsinki just a few days ago. I found it on Hommaforum and there was a link to Youtube video of the demonstration. Put “helsinki finland 2-3-2012” in the search and you’ll find it.

    “Lehdistö ja media haluavat tehdä Koraanista samanlaisen kuin Raamattu on. Jotta he voisivat mediassa halveksua ja halventaa sitä halunsa mukaan. Tämä ei ole mahdollista. Kuten kaikki tiedämme, vaikka yksikään muslimivaltio ei tulisi tukemaan meitä tässä asiassa, Koraanin eteen me muslimit annamme kaikkemme.”

    “Kaikki tiedämme, että arabikevät on tulossa askel askeleelta ja uskontomme laajenee päivä päivältä. Ja Koraani tulee olemaan elämän nuora valtaosalle ihmisistä. Kaikki tulee vielä julki, että islam on oikea rauhan uskonto. Islam on rauhan uskonto. Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!”

    Can I be afraid? No, not without being called an islamophobe. Could you, Mark, please explain why we must take people with the values like those in here? Why is it our responsibility? When they talk about peace, what do you think about it? What about their feelings which obviously were hurt? Do you think that we should draw lines based on their feelings, their beliefs? Do you really think I hate the “third worlders”? You made the accusation earlier, remember?

    Society is about people. People are the society. Think about that.

    I believe strongly that tighter immigration policy is good for everyone including the immigrants here. I’m pretty sure you, Mark, for example don’t share much of the values quoted above. Although you don’t like much the freedom of speech also. If the immigration policy sucks it reflects badly to everybody. Yeah, it’s not right but it’s the reality. I have immigrant friends. So I want that immigration policies work that the immigrants here have a good reputation. That’s why I would like it much tighter. I would like it to address the values of people coming here because if you don’t believe in western individualism, the west is probably a terrible place for you too when everything is “insulting” you and your beliefs (or you believe it that way).

    I’ve myself been afraid once with my immigrant friends. The situation got really scary. It’s good I’m a big and fierce man so we got away without violence. But these kind of things make me think. Make me think about the right course for everyone.

  84. Elven archer

    “In academic literature, the data is provided, the researchers must offer an analysis and to some extent explanations of the data set in addition to its limitations. Without this analysis and relating the data to the existing field of knowledge, a paper is incomplete.”

    Nope. There many kinds of studies like exploratory, constructive, empirical and so forth. Some only find problems, some try to develop solutions to certain problems and so on. And you cares? I talked about the results. You talked about Putnam’s hopes how to combat the results. You have the burden of proof.

    Where’s the silver bullet? You like to push this thing forward, so it’s your job to assure me that everything will be fine. Nobody has done that. Problems are rising everywhere. Not just US, but in Europe, in Australia. Nobody has the answers to them. So why do it? What arrogance gives you the right to do it? Give me the answers first. Give me the study that shows that your solution works. I gave you the study which showed the problem. You push it, you solve it.

  85. Elven archer

    “As I pointed out to you, the data do not ‘predict’ that diversity creates a lack of trust, because that kind of conclusion cannot be made from cross-sectional data.”

    It kind of does. It’s correlation, yeah, but other things equal, naturally, it’s strongly suggests causality.

    “more diversity in a community is associated with less trust”

    Can’t say it any better.

    “Many Americans today are uncomfortable with diversity.”

    That’s the same thing. Of course it’s about people. The whole study is about how people feel. How nice that you are arguing for me. And so why push it? If people are uncomfortable and Putnam’ study shows that the contact hypothesis does not work, why create confrontation just for the sake of it? If people have problems, you can’t just ignore them and push forward like nothing. That’s just asking for more trouble. Obviously there’s a better way to deal with it.

  86. Andy

    D4R

    ”Peter is right, dont expect non from räsänen. The reason why räsänen and other politician are quiet is cause of losing votes and position. P.S HAS STRONG POSITION IN THIS COUNTRY and in the goverment. ”

    Peter may be right but what is wrong in your statement?

  87. Andy

    D4R

    I am asking, why isn’t iltalehti not getting involved this threat on their discussion board? there was just recently immigrants killings, and they’re alloweing this kind of violence incitement in their discussion board? what’s going on? is this even legal”

    hmm, ask your colleague justicedemon how legal his threats are.

  88. Mark

    Elven

    I admire your energy, I admire your passion, I even admire your stubbornness, but I do not admire one little bit your inability or refusal to make even small efforts to concede a point when it is well lost. That may well be your undoing in life.

    You wrote this:

    Diversity causes hunkering, that was the result. He’s suggestions were not a part of the study, the real hard evidence, they were his visions and hopes, not backed up by the evidence he gathered.

    For a start it is an absolute no no in this kind of cross-sectional comparative survey to deduce from the result that one thing has ’caused’ another. Just NEVER done. EVER. EVER. Am I clear?

    Here you go, if you don’t believe me, here is a quote:

    Cross-sectional studies are sometimes carried out to investigate associations between risk factors and the outcome of interest. They are limited, however, by the fact that they are carried out at one time point and give no indication of the sequence of events — whether exposure occurred before, after or during the onset of the disease outcome. This being so, it is impossible to infer causality.

    Get that? It’s impossible to infer causality, no matter how strong the association.

    Mark wrote:“In academic literature, the data is provided, the researchers must offer an analysis and to some extent explanations of the data set in addition to its limitations. Without this analysis and relating the data to the existing field of knowledge, a paper is incomplete.”

    Elven wrote: Nope. There many kinds of studies like exploratory, constructive, empirical and so forth. Some only find problems, some try to develop solutions to certain problems and so on. And you cares? I talked about the results. You talked about Putnam’s hopes how to combat the results. You have the burden of proof.

    Many kinds of study, yes, but generally speaking only one kind of scientific reporting for those studies and they follow pretty much the exact same pattern as I outlined above. There is very little variation, even between a review study, a randomized control trial, or a comparative study like Putnam’s. Look, this is not your field and you are embarrassing yourself by pretending to know what you are talking about.

    So, when your ‘nope’ turns to a ‘yep’, then I know we can proceed with this discussion.

    It is absolutely pointless trying to discuss the implications of scientific evidence if you do not understand the basics of how scientific evidence is presented to the scientific community and how it is properly interpreted by that community. Sorry mate, anything less is pseudo-science.

    For the record, I have personally edited almost 1000 scientific articles (and several hundred development reports), 85% of which (yes I have statistics) have been published in the top 20% of science journals based on their ISI rank, including all the big names in social science.

    Now, are you ready to concede a little ground for the sake of good manners and factual discussion?

  89. Mark

    Elven

    Oh, I forgot to add, here were the words used by Putnam in his article in the Scandanavian Journal of Political Studies:

    diversity itself seems to encourage hunkering

    and later:

    diversity produces hunkering

    and in the final conclusions:

    Nevertheless, the core finding that diversity encourages hunkering seems highly robust.

    Don’t think for a second that ‘produces’ hunkering is the same as ‘causing’. ‘Producing’ means it results in, but it has nothing to say about the root causality.

    As a final quote from his study, this I think concedes ground to your points:

    Some tough research questions have been raised by my analysis that I have not yet answered. We need to learn more about the many possible mechanisms – from physiological to political – that link diversity and hunkering.

    Yes, it is food for thought. But your conclusions were exactly the kinds of premature and ill-informed conclusions that Putnam was very keen to avoid entering the political space.

  90. Desertgnu

    Elven archer.

    ”So it’s obvious we shouldn’t control the immigration, just let everybody in.”

    That is an example of you being disingenuous. Yes, it s a devious argument, and you know it is, despite your tendency to play up feeling offended, and labelling comments as personal attacks. But it is still a salient point, and not for the reasons you might think.

    Considering the lack of immigration to this country, the absurdly small number of immigrants, your arguments are as said, naive or deliberately misleading.

    Even countries such as Switzerland found out that they simply cannot just ”opt out” of everything continually.

    Your words about Shariah Law really come under the age-old adage of ”a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.”

    Yes, 40% voted for Shariah law in GB, and that might or might not be the case in Finland. I worked with Jordanians and Palestinians (not refugees), and some share the paranoia that I would say defines some of your argument, due to their political leanings. Some of them would undoubtedly number in that 40%. Why? Because they are like you. They want strong law and order. They are also afraid of their own fundamentalist bigots. You might say that wanting ”Sharia law (or Shariah law, depending on transliteration)” or part of it to be fundamentalist in nature. The situation is much more complex than that. It is not a case of dividing hardliners and liberals.

    I find your dismissal of Ratio’s comments as ”stupid” in the wake of the Norwegian horror extremely misguided, just as I find Sarkosy’s tactical move – before his hopeful demise in the next election – of stating France (who owns territories across the globe) has too many ‘foreigners”extremely distasteful. But then he is a person who kicked our Roma people from France in another attempt at popularity.

    The word ”foreigner” needs defining of course. Sarkosy, (son of a Hungarian immigrant – and don’t start with tales of exemplary integration, as there some dark areas there) may feel he can get away with saying that in France to try to get the 10-15% (estimates of course, who knows) racist National Front vote, though France is mildly different. Here I do worry about comments of incitement to violence, given gun laws here and the fact that Finns, as you say, don’t ”explode” and go to the streets. As far as I know there have only tragically been 2 school shootings in Finland for example, but in a small population like this, that is enough. And I do not bring that up as a sensationalist argument. As a professional in the field of health & safety I know all about researched opinion about copycat behaviour and triggers.

  91. Desertgnu

    Farang

    If somebody shoots someone from another ethnic group, even with a ”god-given” cause” I would say he’s showing some pretty appalling signs of racism, yes.

  92. Desertgnu

    Joku

    ”My point: people’s way of reacting to horrible situations may be different in different cultures. It still doesn’t mean they can’t actually feel the same.”

    I found many of the points you raised valid, very much, though take issues with your opening statements about ”both sides” (paraphrased) and your closing point above.

    There is not an issue of two sides here. There is an alarming xenophobic tendency in Finnish society. People’s way of reacting is important – even crucial.

  93. Stevie

    Desertgnu

    ”If somebody shoots someone from another ethnic group, even with a ”god-given” cause” I would say he’s showing some pretty appalling signs of racism, yes.”

    -how do you consider the fact there is not yet an official version of racism for this?
    -how do you consider the two demonstrations in Oulu and Helsinki stating it was not the skin but an attack on islamic culture, thus not racism?

  94. Mark

    Do the honours, Enrique and delete the double post:

    Elven/Marian

    Just to be clear, I will not discuss any other points about immigration or racism until you cede on these scientific points that I have challenged you on. Just to be clear, I am not demanding that you change your interpretation of Putnman’s data, but rather that you agree the points about the scientific methodology involved and the limitations of that methodology.

    It is a shame if you cannot cede these points, because I think that you do offer some interesting insights.

    But I have two basic problems with your current approach to debating – your refusal to see that responses different to your own as having any validity (i.e. unable to step outside your perspective for a second) and the way you constantly attempt to ‘position’ other people in the debate.

    I saw the first problem in your first comment:

    What else do you need? Why should known politicians comment on every possible stupid thing from some neverheard from almost nowhere said on Facebook? “I comdemn this obviously stupid comment as… stupid! Now the world is a way better place!”

    Your repeated use of the word stupid, 3 times, only reinforces the sense that THIS is the only valid response, regardless of how we choose to interpret the word ‘stupid’. And indeed, you made no effort whatsoever to validate any other responses.

    And then the positioning. You place me and Enrique as the ‘foreigners’ who don’t understand Finland. Not only that, but in regards to the value of your own perspective, you tell me:

    You really need to understand this if you want to really, really know what’s going on.

    The implication is that because I’m not in YOUR position, I cannot possibly know what is going on. The fact that nothing you wrote was really news to me only reinforces in my mind that positioning me as if I needed to know these things shows that you asking me where I stand, you telling me where I stand – and each time you do that, you use a hegemonic device to do that. If you know anything about gender and are serious about the rights of women, I’m sure you know what this means.

    The point is, you have interesting things to say and something to contribute, but as long as you dress them up in this kind of semi-hysterical (feigned outrage), manipulative (positioning) and narcissistic (in the loose sense of unempathic) style of presentation, then you will only alienate people.

    While the right to free speech ensures we get to say what we want to say, I would argue that it is the art of dialogue that gets our opponents to actually hear what we have to say. And it starts with proper listening and validation. So, when you bang on about free speech, it might be worth also keeping this in mind.

    I honestly don’t want to ‘fight’ with you. I want to discuss. But I’m not going to have the wool pulled over my eyes by your questionable intentions or your aggressive style of approach, and then listen to long long complaints about how you have been badly received here. You turn the debate into a distraction, and that starts to irritate, frankly.

    I think you have pretty much got what you deserved, so far. Or let’s say, you have got out what you put in. Maybe that is more accurate.

    I doubt these comments will be useful for today’s debate. But maybe in the future, eh?!

  95. Farang

    Desertgnu

    “If somebody shoots someone from another ethnic group, even with a ”god-given” cause” I would say he’s showing some pretty appalling signs of racism, yes.”

    And this comment of yours proves that you are a racist.

  96. Stevie

    Farang

    ”And this comment of yours proves that you are a racist.”

    I will ask you specifically when I need yor answer, this was a question for somebody else.

  97. Mark

    Marian

    Sorry. You wrote this to on another thread yesterday:

    You really are a piece of work… I raised this same question as Elven Archer here on a earlier blog entry, you never gave an answer and now repeat your mantra here.

    If you ‘write as someone’, then you are writing something using that person’s name, like a pseudonym. I guess you meant that you raised the same question as Elven Archer. Sorry for the confusion.

  98. Farang

    Stevie, what’s your problem? First of all, I didn’t even comment to you, I commented to Desertgnu. And second, I wasn’t even answering to any question, I just posted my opinion.

    Mark and Marian: Interesting stuff there. Instead of answering the question, Mark is just commenting on how Marian wrote the question. Funny how these people (Mark & co) don’t understand their lack of understanding even in a point where they realise that they can’t answer the question without proving to everyone else (and themselves) that they are wrong. So basically they are lying to themselves also, how stupid is that?

  99. Mark

    Farang

    Instead of answering the question, Mark is just commenting on how Marian wrote the question. Funny how these people (Mark & co) don’t understand their lack of understanding even in a point where they realise that they can’t answer the question without proving to everyone else (and themselves) that they are wrong. So basically they are lying to themselves also, how stupid is that?

    Funny how some people read half a post and get the completely wrong idea 😀 😀

  100. Mark

    Andy

    Farang appears to be upset that I explained in plain terms the confusion of me referring to her in my above post to Elven, mentioning her words on a previous thread. And my intention really wasn’t to start engaging her on that point here. But Farang took that to mean:

    So basically they are lying to themselves also, how stupid is that?

    Now that is funny! 😀

    Nice to see you have me down as a capaccino sucking liberal, too! 😀 Actually, I’m more of a Nescafe person, and occasionaly a Suomen Juhla person.

  101. Andy

    he’ll get over it. That’s the risk when you have comments comming from left and right.

    Finns say often when traveling to Europe. ”Coffee (espresso) is toxic down there.”

    I wonder what Europeans say when they travel to Finland and drink filter-coffee in Finland.

  102. Desertgnu

    Stevie

    ”If somebody shoots someone from another ethnic group, even with a ”god-given” ”cause” I would say he’s showing some pretty appalling signs of racism, yes.”

    1. -how do you consider the fact there is not yet an official version of racism for this?

    Stevie, however much I disagree with some of the correspondents here, and however distasteful I might find some arguments, they do ALWAYS speak their minds. Nothing compares to this question of your for pure humorous value. Are you seriously suggesting I wait for an ”official version of racism” to be given befre being appalled by the racist nature of this crime. Thanks for injecting humour into this discussion – albeit a dark humour.

    2.-how do you consider the two demonstrations in Oulu and Helsinki stating it was not the skin but an attack on islamic culture, thus not racism?

    Stevie! You have surpassed yourself! I would honestly like to treat this question seriously, but it is difficult. ”It was an attack on Islamic culture”, means it was not racism?> And that means it is ok? And you are seriously saying that is what you think the demonstrations are about?

    Think I’ve given you enough of my time.

  103. Desertgnu

    Farang

    “If somebody shoots someone from another ethnic group, even with a ”god-given” ”cause” I would say he’s showing some pretty appalling signs of racism, yes.”

    ”And this comment of yours proves that you are a racist.”

    Farang – I am willing to discuss your allegation but find it difficult to see where the comment I made above shows I am racist. Please explain – I certainly tried to understand from where you garnered your ”proof.”

  104. Desertgnu

    Andy

    Interesting comment. I remember a group of Swedes coming to a hotel in Chamonix, France, beneath Mont Blanc, highest mountain in Western Europe. The hotel was even called ”Hotel des Etrangers (”Foreigners Hotel” 3 stars, in front of station). The Swedes would not drink the coffee because they were worried if the water was ”drinkable”…fools..mountain water, (yes, cleaned also) nearly as good as Finnish water!

    ”Could it be,” I wondered, ”that people could be so isolationist as to be so ignorant?”

  105. Desertgnu

    Farang

    You’re not Donald Rumsfield disguised are you? You know the one ..”There are those that knw, those that know they know, those that don’t know they know, those that don’t know they don’t know and those that don’t know.”. I would say yours below should be the winner of the newly-announced Rumsfield Award for Rumificating English:

    ”Funny how these people (Mark & co) don’t understand their lack of understanding even in a point where they realise that they can’t answer the question without proving to everyone else (and themselves) that they are wrong. So basically they are lying to themselves also”

    Wonderful – as entertainment, not as topic. By the way, it’s called a ”full stop”. Annoying little thing, but comes in useful now and then to clarify to a reader what might be said.

  106. Desertgnu

    Elven/Marian…etc

    ”Why should known politicians comment on every possible stupid thing from some neverheard from almost nowhere said on Facebook? “I comdemn this obviously stupid comment as… stupid!”

    Incitement to violence desperately labelled as ”stupid X3”..(said on Facebook, probably the largest possible platform), that is desperation.

    Repeated tying together of immigrants, foreigners, Somalis to rape and high-levels of crime: this is tactical and not defending real points of view. Your deliberate planting of statements is looking a little exposed and fragile. No doubt you’ll be back under a different name. But I would say, after reading Mark’s arguments, and discovery, that your voice has been severely muted.

  107. Desertgnu

    Reading back up the comments I would say that there are very different views on what ”liberism” is.Its not only supporting gay rights, women’s rights, and other now mainstream issues of our common European background. It also includes other, new, or not-so-new issues. I know of many who totally approve of same-sex marriage but firmly believe Romaani people are put here on earth to steal from us at every occasion (not Finnish people by the way).

    How many bombs have been planted by the Romas, how many states did they invade with the objective of taking it over, I have replied. Easy maths of course; zero. At last a statistic that cannot lie. Future comparisons between ”Somalis’ and ”Finns” might do well to be better researched. This repeated assertion that ”Somalis’ rape, and cause more crime than Finns is mostly anecdotal. First lets narrow down to which sociological grouping are committing the most crime – the company owners, unemployed, blue collar workers? Which age group? Then compare.

    My personal experience of crime in Finland, on five occasions, was theft, each time by a different white middle-aged Finnish-speaking female, 2 of them shopkeepers, and one of the shopkeepers twice. I cannot label Finns ”light-fingered”, but I can question if there is an issue of loneliness or other such issue among certain persons of a certain age here in Finland, and currently female.

    There are universal values. We don’t steal, because we know its wrong. We don’t need to be religious not to steal.
    In Saudi Arabia most accountants are Sudanese because they have a well-earned reputation for honesty, and for never gossiping, but you and I could find a dishonest Sudanese who gossips ONE day maybe!

    Yes, there ARE cultural values. Some are universal. The friendliest, most hard-working and honest people I have come across here in Finland are the Kurds. They are also the most likely to speak Finnish, along with the Somalis, much more likely than us lazy Europeans. But nobody blames us. We get the lovely smiles.

    Meanwhile, our great European culture finds an excuse to send another Kurd, or Afghani (female) refugee home, turned down, after a few years here, learning Finnish, working. Nope. Out. And oh yeah..in 24 hours….I am not blaming Finland here – we all do it, all European countries. But let’s think for a minute or two what kind of stress that places on our immigrant and minority populations.

  108. Stevie

    Desertgnu

    First of all, don’t imply things that I never said. It was two simple questions.

    Feel free to describe in detail what happened at the three scenes?

  109. Elven archer

    “Elven archer….sorry, Marian…

    You guys in some kind of comedy routine tonight or something?”

    Please elaborate. If you suggest that we are the same… well… I believe that to be consistent with your “logic” you show elsewhere. Why would Marian say openly that she asked the question “as Elven Archer” and then deny it? It’s obviously a grammatical error. We can always talk Finnish if these kinds of errors are too much for you to handle?

    “Incitement to violence desperately labelled as ”stupid X3”..(said on Facebook, probably the largest possible platform), that is desperation.”

    Someone’s Facebook page isn’t “probably the largest possible platform” and it certainly is not an official platform. People can talk there, exchange theirs views. Do you have a problem with that? Obviously you do. It’s a shame that some people would deny even basic human rights like the freedom of speech. That’s just appalling. I fear that kind of mentality much more than I fear someone’s like Rautio’s because that kind of totalitarianism can really be pulled off! It’s happening all the time. It’s scary as hell. And it’s a sure way to create more some kind of breiviks if people think that nobody hears them and they have no civilized (yes, talking even offending things is very civilized comparing to alternatives) way to affect things.

    I gave many arguments, still not countered, so I don’t see a single reason to desperation, at least not in my part. Just prove me wrong, when i explained how (also) this kind of freedom of speech is a good thing. Now you are just insisting. Your opinion is not an argument. “Incitement” is not an argument. You’d have to show some logic in here why it was a very serious bad thing.

    “Repeated tying together of immigrants, foreigners, Somalis to rape and high-levels of crime: this is tactical and not defending real points of view. ”

    The only people in this discussion who have even used a word “somali” are Enrique and Mark. So you just lied and considering your tone you obviously did that in purpose.

    You haven’t presented a single argument. You just stated you opinions and lied and got personal. Thank my infinite patience that I even answered to you. Or was it a bad thing? I have a feeling that I’m not wanted here.

    “They want strong law and order. They are also afraid of their own fundamentalist bigots. You might say that wanting ”Sharia law (or Shariah law, depending on transliteration)” or part of it to be fundamentalist in nature. The situation is much more complex than that. It is not a case of dividing hardliners and liberals.”

    To insist that wanting more religious control, more strict laws based on religion, that is almost the definition of fundamentalism. It’s obvious that no fact is a fact enough for you because even more religion could mean less religion in your book like we saw from the above.

    That would be funny, if it wasn’t so scary that people choose ideologies before the truth, before the reality. But it’s good to hear again from the multiculturalists that there is not and there can’t even be a problem with islam. Not even when almost 40 % of the so called modern western muslims in Britain want religious laws. Obviously they are integrating so well and hey, just look at the islamic countries, you can’t find problems at all with islam. They are quite paradises on earth (just a few bad governments here or there, but the values of the people are just about right, right?), no human rights violations, no hatred against sexual minorities, no problems with women being not equal and so forth.

    So when they reported in the UK that “The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals. In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million.” it doesn’t matter? It doesn’t shape the UK in an unwanted way but instead it just makes the country better, more multiculturalist? You must know by now that that is multiculturalism in a nutshell, in practise? That is mixing people with very different core values. And we in Finland should follow this lead how to be multiculturalists and that we should stop being so islamophobic? Is that what you are all saying when you go so strongly against us who say that we really would like to make a few changes to our immigration policies?

  110. Mark

    Elven

    I have tolerated your crap for long enough. I see you only choose to respond to those posts that you could obfuscate on. No response to my arguments.

    Well, tour

    • Migrant Tales

      –Well your comments about Muslims breeding ten times faster in the UK reveal you as an utter bigot. Shame on you!

      This is an old ploy even used in Finland in the nineteenth century to show how Jews, due to higher birthrates, would takeover Finland. Finland’s Jewish population totals a mere 2,000.

      Sorry, but one cannot predict the future with a pocket calculator.

  111. Elven archer

    “Well your comments about Muslims breeding ten times faster in the UK reveal you as an utter bigot. Shame on you!”

    That was from the news, that’s why it was in quotes. The story was originally published by The Times.

    I don’t give direct html links here because the last time I did my message was sent to the queue waiting for approval. Just google it: times muslims ten times faster. The original story appears to be off-line now but you’ll find enough references to it in other news sites. My quote was from a certain Indian newspaper quoting The Times.

    Oh boy, I image you feel pretty stupid right now 😀

  112. Elven archer

    “I have tolerated your crap for long enough. I see you only choose to respond to those posts that you could obfuscate on. No response to my arguments.”

    I answered to your four points and they are to the point of this blog entry (please answer those). That Putnam thing doesn’t go anywhere (we just have to agree on disagreeing) and it is a sidetrack anyways so I thought it’s better to drop it when I wrote several other messages that you didn’t even answer. It’s obvious there’s too much text in here and too little focus and because of that something is left unaswered. I thought I was doing you a favour because you did complain about my resilience regarding lengthy messages.

  113. Elven archer

    Here’s the source to my quote (let’s see if this blog software allows one link without putting it to the queue):

    http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Muslim-population-multiplied-10-times-faster-in-UK/417773/

    “The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals. In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million.

    “The implications are very substantial. Some of the Muslim population, by no means all of them, are the least socially and economically integrated of any in the UK… and the one most associated with political dissatisfaction,” David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University was quoted as saying by ‘The Times’.”

    So Mark? Do you think you owe me an apology?

  114. Desertgnu

    Stevie

    Quoting your own questions to you is not ”implying” you said anything. You said it.

    What ”happened” as you say, using twisted words to describe murder, is in public interest and is public knowledge.

    I suspect you just write anything and are not seriously presenting any arguments, such is the basement level of your little comments.

  115. Desertgnu

    Elven archer..or whoever you are

    Your obvious typing errors are obvious only to you..
    Try to stop whining and whining about your version of freedom of speech, and then spend a long column ranting ”don’t” do this and ”don’t” do that. It is embarrassing.

    >”It’s a shame that some people would deny even basic human rights like the freedom of speech. That’s just appalling. I fear that kind of mentality much more than I fear someone’s like Rautio’s because that kind of totalitarianism can really be pulled off! It’s happening all the time. It’s scary as hell. And it’s a sure way to create more some kind of breiviks.”

    It is sick to say that people are denying basic rights such as freedom of speech to utterly despicable comments that are ian incitement to violence. Using the word ”war” while saying the killer should get a ”medal” is incitement.

    >”We can always talk Finnish if these kinds of errors are too much for you to handle?”

    We can also always talk in French, Spanish and Hungarian but it won’t help your attempts.

    regarding your whining freedom of speech, I say again: If you are in a theatre happily watching a play, and someone suddenly gets up and shouts ”fire! fire!” will you defend his right to freedom of speech in such a spineless way you did above, using breiviks in the same paragraph?, that you fear a ”mentality” more than someone who slaughtered youths and adults in the name of racism? I do not need to make any comment about that. You said it all.

    Considering the type of people who stole money from me here , and that as said I dmire how hard Kurdish people work here, I find your comments about Muslems breeding in the UK boring. – and read the whole article before selectively quoting. THAT is called being selective with the truth.

    Your point is ancient. ”Jews, blacks, gypsies, Chinese” they have all been said to ”breed” so much.
    Most nationalities and ethnic groups ‘breed” more than Europeans these days. Some will even ”breed” with your kind. Get used to it. Also ”try” to make an effort – Muslems from India bear very little resemblance to Muslems from Malaysia or Iran or Kosovo and Bosnia.

    The kind of society you want is disappearing. Calling people stupid simply shows Freud is right – we call others what we are. Finland has done very well. Over 150 years ago it could not even feed itself, and is ow a fully-fledged prosperous country and culture. But in Chinese terms that is a mere blip in history. The toughest challenge lies ahead. Work to make all changes and transitions as smooth as possible, instead of whining from the sidelines that no-one is listening to you.

  116. Desertgnu

    Elven archer

    PS ”So when they reported in the UK that….” is not a valid factual statement. 2% of British people go to church. The Indian newspaper is really taking a swipe at Pakistanis, and only certain people in the Middle East refer to European as ”Christians”. You need to earn a very important skill called ”critical thinking” instead of parroting everything you read. And that is basically what you do in 1 word. You ”parrot” what you read. Is that Fundamentalist in nature? Absolutely.

  117. Farang

    Desertgnu: “Farang – I am willing to discuss your allegation but find it difficult to see where the comment I made above shows I am racist. Please explain – I certainly tried to understand from where you garnered your ”proof.””

    Why is it so hard to understand? Let me try other way: You assumed that shooter was a racist, because he was white.

    You made that assumption based on his skin colour only. If you don’t consider it racism, then please explain.

    Desertgnu: “By the way, it’s called a ”full stop”. Annoying little thing, but comes in useful now and then to clarify to a reader what might be said.”

    And here, instead of answering the question, you just complain about how it is written in bad English. That basically proves my point 🙂 You can’t answer a question, because answering to it would either make you look stupid, or reveal that you are lying.

  118. Desertgnu

    Farang

    ”You assumed that shooter was a racist, because he was white.
    You made that assumption based on his skin colour only.”

    I did not need to make that assumption my dear,did I?

    Good job you are not a lawyer dear Farang, your arguments wouldn’t last 1 second in a court.You’d also be committing perjury a few times with your careless accusations, but then you’d cry and whine ”freedom of speech!”. Onlly it does not work like that.

    Basically, you cannot prove a point that you are not able to make. Your English was not attacked. it was your out of control thoughts that were attacked. Education is free in Finland. Get educated.

    There are two clear sides here on this column. Rational explanations and the other side, who are whining about ”freedom of speech” like its some kind of right to go around insulting, making inflammatory declarations, defending a politicians right to assert there is a”war” against an ethnic group and to kill them, and be rewarded for doing so (difficult), using desperate terminology to show that the person they are writing to is ”stupid” and citing non-existent or determined proof they are ”lying.”

    Which side are you? And do read Freud. Its petty basic stuff. What we call others is what we suffer feelings about to ourselves. Think before you open. The two are usually connected.

    Enough of you. You bore me.
    .

    • Migrant Tales

      Desertgnu, very good points and it is important to set the record straight and to point out when the goalposts are moved.
      Can you imagine if we let the police in Finland or elsewhere define what racism is. I totally agree with you: We don’t have to wait for the police to give us an “official version of racism” as you pointed out.

      Racism, bigotry and discrimination is most effective when we wait for “official versions.”

      — But let’s think for a minute or two what kind of stress that places on our immigrant and minority populations.

      This is exactly the point. Some people naively believe they can keep racism and selective hatred on a short leash. They claim that while they bash one group and victimize them, it only means that group. Wrong. It is what you said, Desertgnu: it spills over on our immigrant and minority populations.

  119. Desertgnu

    To the whiners –

    Luxemburg and Switzerland have by far the highest immigrant/foreign population in Europe. They have the by far highest standard of living, along with Norway, and the lowest level of unemployment.

    Finland’s immigration population (multi-sourced) is 2.9%, same as Sierre Leone’s. Sweden, France and GB all have 3 to 4 times this % of immigrants than Finland, and higher salaries for nurses, policemen and teachers (makes me admire Finnish teachers even more).

    Finland shows this kind of racism with 2.9% of the population foreign. An catastrophic embarrassment.

    Switzerland also shows a disgraceful statistic, in that most of their immigrants have no chance of becoming Swiss.

    The problem with Finland is deeper. many immigrants I have talked to
    (ALL married to Finnish women – sorry guys, and it is a tendency, just as British men marrying foreign women is)
    from African, Middle Eastern and Sub-Asian countries HAVE NO INTENTION of becoming Finnish – to the opposite of say, in Sweden. WHY not? Need I look further than this column for the answer?

    Finland, and Norway were 2 countries with the highest net emigration in Europe over the past 150+ years until 50 years ago. Many Finns went to USA, to Norway itself, Sweden and Australia. All countries easily in the top 10 highest GDP in the world. And Finns actively contributed to that high GDP I am sure.

    Do not tell me my Kurdish shopkeeper friend, who is employing a Finnish assistant that was otherwise unemployed is not actively contributing to the Finnish economy. Do not tell me the group of friendly Somali women who have opened a boutique nearby are not actively contributing to the economy ether, despite the presence of the whiners like yourselves, Farang, Stevie, Elvan archer and Andy. The only hope I personally have is that you stay in Finland, for your naive contributions about immigration, murder and freedom of speech are not exportable products.

  120. Elven archer

    “Try to stop whining and whining about your version of freedom of speech, and then spend a long column ranting ”don’t” do this and ”don’t” do that. It is embarrassing.”

    Talking about whining is not an argument. Saying it embarrassing is not an argument. You would have to explain why it was whining and why it was embarrassing. Obviously you can’t and are just making noise. I gave you many arguments. Please answer those.

    “It is sick to say that people are denying basic rights such as freedom of speech to utterly despicable comments that are ian incitement to violence.”

    It’s more “sick” to take away freedom of speech and I explained WHY it is so, so please answer those arguments first. Calling something sick has no significance on any reasonable debate.

    “We can also always talk in French, Spanish and Hungarian but it won’t help your attempts.”

    Niinkö? Miksi emme siis kokeilisi ehdotustani?

    “If you are in a theatre happily watching a play, and someone suddenly gets up and shouts ”fire! fire!” will you defend his right to freedom of speech in such a spineless way you did above”

    Sinä et todellakaan ymmärrä sananvapauden perimmäistä ideaa. Ei se tarkoita, ettei sellaisesta valheesta, joka aiheuttaa selvästi osoitettavan vahingon selvästi osoitettaville uhreille, pitäisi joutua vastuuseen. Mutta tässä puhumassamme tapauksessahan ei ollut vahinkoa tai uhreja. Pelkkää kollektiivista mielipahaa ei voi pitää sellaisena, koska senhän saa jo aikaan tällä lauseella: jumalaa ei ole. Katso vaikka se yllä puhumani mielenosoitus muutaman päivää takaa, niin huomaat väitteen todenperäisyyden. Jatkuvasti joku loukkaantuu verisesti jostain, on se sitten Mannerheimin esittäminen homona tai taideteos historiallisesta profeetasta. Ei sellainen maailma ole edes teoriassa mahdollinen, jossa jokaisesta kollektiivisesta loukkaantumisesta rankaistaisiin. Tai jos olisi, kukaan ei voisi sanoa mitään, koska niin monet kokevat omien perimmäisten arvojensa vastaiset arvot loukkaavina. Näin ollen täytyy osoittaa se vahinko, täytyy osoittaa ne uhrit. Jos joku huutaa turhaan tulta teatterissa ja siitä seuraa taloudellista vahinkoa tai ihmiset loukkaavat itseään paniikissa, ei ole millään tapaa sananvapauden vastaista, että huutaja vastaa seurauksista.

    Rautio ei edes yllyttänyt ketään rikokseen. Hän ei sanonut, että kenenkään pitäisi tehdä rikosta. Tämä on fakta. Sinä intät päinvastaista, mutta et pysty osoittamaan kohtaa, joka sisältäisi kehotuksen: menkää, tehkää tai mitään edes etäisesti vastaavaa. Hän vain kuvasi OMIA arvojaan. Hän kertoi mielipiteenään, mitä HÄN pitää mitalin arvoisena. Sen näkeminen yllytyksenä on lapsellista. Totta kai ihmisellä on oikeus kertoa, mitä hän arvostaa. Minä esim. arvostan sananvapautta hyvin paljon. Sinä et selvästikään liiemmin arvosta sananvapautta. Minusta mielipiteesi on vastenmielinen, kuten Rautionkin kommentti, mutta pidän oikeutenasi kertoa, mitä sinä pidät arvossa. Samoin pidän Raution oikeutena kertoa, mitä hän pitää arvossa. Ja kuten jo lukuisia kertoja olen perustellut, käytännöllisesti ajatellen Raution kommentti itse asiassa hyödytti yhteisöä, jopa maahanmuuttajayhteisöä. Esitin monta hyötyä, mutta toistan niistä tässä vain yhden: hänen poliittinen valtansa kapeni huomattavasti, kun hän sai potkut puolueesta. Hänen on käytännössä mahdotonta edetä politiikassa kaikkien suurten puolueiden ulkopuolella.

    “Considering the type of people who stole money from me here , and that as said I dmire how hard Kurdish people work here, I find your comments about Muslems breeding in the UK boring. – and read the whole article before selectively quoting. THAT is called being selective with the truth.”

    Those were not my comments. They were from the study by the Office for National Statistics.

    Is it really so hard to see the difference? Selective? Please show how. You are so funny, you just insist but you have nothing to back you up but your word “it is so because I say so”. It’s funny.

    “Your point is ancient.”

    If you can call 2004 – 2008 ancient.

    “The kind of society you want is disappearing. Calling people stupid simply shows Freud is right – we call others what we are.”

    I haven’t call anybody any names. But I’ve been called names. For example Mark called me “an utter bigot” because I quoted the news of the study by the Office for National Statistics. Do you still believe Freud was right? 😀

  121. Elven archer

    “The Indian newspaper is really taking a swipe at Pakistanis, and only certain people in the Middle East refer to European as ”Christians”.”

    LOL. They quoted The Times. And The Times talked about the Christians in it’s story.

    Refer to Europeans as Christians? They referred to the Christians in UK as the Christians in UK. The study was about UK.

    And The Times just reported the study by the Office for National Statistics (in UK). Are they also “really taking a swipe at Pakistanis””? LOL.

  122. Desertgnu

    Elven archer

    You are an utter bigot and I still believe Mark was right.

    And Freud, who would have had a field day, meaning a very good time studying you.

    I have no idea what you rote in your rant and rave as it is in a foreign language, so I just skipped it all.

    Try some control…

    Dear Elven. let me repeat myself. You did not quote, you parroted. A parrot parrots. A rational human being analyses, uses critical thinking.

    As for your silly definition of freedom of speech, go hand around the courts, wait until an immigrant is being tried for a crime, then shout persistently he should be deported. When you are thrown out for contempt of court and fined for the same start crying and whining about your ”freedom of speech.”

    You are a bit too silly for me, as all bigots are. Their rants and raves usually reflect deeper personal issues. Go sort yourself out. It is unlikely I will have the tm to even read the rubbish you write so my replies will probably be cut ad paste. For a parrot that is a good thing. And if you write in a foreign language again I’d say reading you is even more dull and pointless.

    Have a nice afternoon. Squawk skuawk…..

  123. Elven archer

    “This is an old ploy even used in Finland in the nineteenth century to show how Jews, due to higher birthrates, would takeover Finland. Finland’s Jewish population totals a mere 2,000.

    Sorry, but one cannot predict the future with a pocket calculator.”

    Can’t anybody here read? The study talked about the birthrates ALREADY HAPPENED in 2004 – 2008 in UK.

    That is not the future. That is the past. You don’t have to predict the past.

    Wow! Your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you can’t even accept what we are talking about. I say 2004 – 2008 and you read it “the future”. This is getting a waaaaay too weird for me.

  124. Desertgnu

    Elven archer

    Read the article parrot. The Times is not quoting per se, it is referring to ”studies” carried out with specific agendas. Read carefully. Then think a little. Then stay in Finland and by all means reply in Finnish. You are definitely not exportable.

    Would you like me to carry out research here by asking the Finnish women I know (see previous posting) why they married foreign men? Would my results prove anything? Don’t be so silly.

  125. Elven archer

    “You are an utter bigot and I still believe Mark was right.”

    What about Freud? Was he right? 😉 What about the national office that produced the study? Are they bigots too in there? And that professor of demographics studies, is he too an utter bigot? And if so, why? Was the study wrong? I haven’t seen you pointing out any errors in their methodology 🙂

    “I have no idea what you rote in your rant and rave as it is in a foreign language, so I just skipped it all.”

    That’s unusual because you said we could ALSO ALWAYS talk in Finnish. I quote your answer to my suggestion to use Finnish:

    “We can also always talk in French, Spanish and Hungarian but it won’t help your attempts.”

    We can always but then we suddenly couldn’t? Or you couldn’t. Please try to make up your mind.

    “A rational human being analyses, uses critical thinking.”

    The rationale was in the study. You have not shown any rationale although I asked nicely for it. So what’s wrong with the study? Show me your rationale if you have any? LOL.

    “You are a bit too silly for me, as all bigots are.”

    Yes, I’m sure everybody reading this conversation have noticed that. You are so clever that you didn’t even realize that speaking about the Christians in UK was speaking about the Christians in UK. How clever is that?

    “Their rants and raves usually reflect deeper personal issues. Go sort yourself out.”

    A Freud thing again?

    “It is unlikely I will have the tm to even read the rubbish you write so my replies will probably be cut ad paste.”

    Yes, I also find it very unlikely that you will answer my arguments.

  126. Elven archer

    “The Times is not quoting per se, it is referring to ”studies” carried out with specific agendas.”

    Read the article from The Times. I have. It says the exact same things I quoted.

    Specific agendas? Yes, the Office for National Statistics in UK have agendas to map demographics statistics in UK and present them in the form of studies. That is what they do.

  127. Elven archer

    “Read the article parrot.”

    Alright. So what’s the error in this:

    “The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals.”

    Show me the error and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

  128. Mark

    Elven

    So Mark? Do you think you owe me an apology?

    Absolutely not. Do you complain that Catholic families are also bigger on average than the rest of the population? So what the is your problem with Muslim families? What would you like to see, sterilization? What on earth do you actually expect people to get from that observation? Do you want them to be afraid that Christians are going to disappear, or is it just enough that people are afraid of Muslim immigration.

    It was a disgusting comment that reveals an horrific lack of humanity. One of the worst most bigoted comments I’ve seen on Migrant Tales.

    And don’t think that because you quote ‘something factual’ that that means it cannot possibly be bigotry. That crap doesn’t wash here on Migrant Tales. The bigotry comes from your specific use of the information, not the information itself.

    You present yourself as an intellectual, as someone that uses data and evidence, but you are not anything like an academic and you do not follow any of the rigors of academic debate, which are designed to ensure to some extent that debates remains factual.

    You were corrected on a factual point about your interpretation of Putnam’s data, about which you claimed a causal relation that was actually impossible to infer given the study’s methodology. This is a hugely important point and one that absolutely affects the interpretations that you can put on that data.

    But as this didn’t suit your own prejudices and your motives for using the data, you simply showed no courage to admit your mistake. In fact, you actually tried, in an absolutely pathetic way, to convince this audience that it was my mistake, by blabbing on about different kinds of study, when in fact science reporting for almost all studies follows a pretty consistent formula. In other words, you tried to create a distraction and present yourself as much more knowledgeable about academic standards of presentation than you actually are. You are a fraud.

    You still have not had to common (dare I say, academic) courtesy to admit that you were absolutely proved wrong on the point.

    But its not my problem if you decide not throw away any semblance of intellectual credibility. You have already made your mind up about these issues and you hunt for any kind of evidence, whether properly analyzed or taken out of context, to give the appearance that you arrived at your opinion through reason. That is clearly not true and so the only alternative is that you arrive at your opinions through bigotry – blind hatred directed arbitrarily towards certain groups whose only ‘crime’ is to be different to you.

    So, despite trying to present yourself as someone who uses analysis and criticism as their tools to understand immigration, you are actually no better than some of the other ignorant ‘slogan warriors’ that turn up on this blog. Your bigotry disgust me, Elven. You are a fraud and a bigot.

  129. Elven archer

    “They have the by far highest standard of living, along with Norway, and the lowest level of unemployment.”

    Correlation is not causality. Norway has lots of oil. Please show how the immigrants are responsible for their higher standard of living and that the higher standard of living is not for example in spite of the immigrants there.

  130. Mark

    Farang

    You said this to DesertGnu

    You made that assumption based on his skin colour only. If you don’t consider it racism, then please explain.

    I already went to the trouble to give you a thorough logical breakdown on this argument you are using. Maybe you missed it. Maybe you simply didn’t understand it.

    Or maybe you are just another one of those slogan warriors that come here to try to smear anyone that happens to defend immigrants. I wonder why that would be … !

  131. Mark

    Elven

    Correlation is not causality. Norway has lots of oil. Please show how the immigrants are responsible for their higher standard of living and that the higher standard of living is not for example in spite of the immigrants there.

    You are fucking hilarious! So you have actually learned something from my comments to you, just too fucking arrogant to admit it!

  132. Desertgnu

    Elven archer

    ”what’s the error in this:”

    -Where are your Christians?

    -You are parroting again. Complete your study and try not to be so selective.

    -If you looked at this issue more closely, you would also know, from the SAME source, that Muslem families are actually also shrinking faster than families of other faiths, both in GB AND in 2 countries studied in the Middle East. That might shock you, but when you go down from 8 children to 4, or 3, you are making a substantial cut. READ. READ also the accompanying reasons for this.

    -I think you gone your distance with parroting parts of a study carried out that you find so important was done now or a few years ago. You have got your mileage from it and have not demonstrated one thought-out conclusion from it.

    Nobody owes you anything. Your

    ”Show me your rationale if you have any? LOL.”

    makes me realise what kind of a fraud we are trying to deal with. We agree on one point, Elven: it is sensetless me answering any of your so-called ”arguments”.

  133. Mark

    Just to point out that that article that talks about muslim population multiplying ten times fast is an extremely misleading title. They are not ‘breeding’ ten times faster, they they have larger families, which is not unusual of people arriving from the developing world. Also, last time I checked, the number of children you choose to have is absolutely a FREE and DEMOCRATIC right, and anyone who complains about it is challenging a freedom we all enjoy! Draw your own conclusions about that.

    So, the factors that affected the survey was that there were more Muslims who were willing to reveal themselves to be Muslim, as well as more converts to Islam as well as higher reproduction rates, as well as growing immigration of people whose religion is Islam. Now last time I checked in the UK, freedom of religion was up there as a basic freedom, and probably one that is as important if not more important than freedom of speech. So anyone who says they are defending freedom of speech while at the same time showing absolutely no respect for the freedom of religion is an extremely questionable ‘champion of human rights’. Likewise, if that person defending free speech is only doing so to defend attacks on people of a different religion, then this should make you further suspicious that this person is the worst kind of BIGOT, one that tries to hide their bigotry behind fancy phrases and sound bites about ‘human rights’. Do not be fooled by such frauds!!!!

  134. Desertgnu

    ”Now last time I checked in the UK, freedom of religion was up there as a basic freedom, and probably one that is as important if not more important than freedom of speech. So anyone who says they are defending freedom of speech while at the same time showing absolutely no respect for the freedom of religion is an extremely questionable ‘champion of human rights’. Likewise, if that person defending free speech is only doing so to defend attacks on people of a different religion, then this should make you further suspicious that this person is the worst kind….”

    Thank you Mark. It is humbling, and hard to add to that paragraph. Elven, show some dignity here. This is your big moment of redemption; your window of opportunity. Don’t blow it.

  135. Elven archer

    “Absolutely not.”

    So quoting the news about the reputable study makes me “an utter bigot”. You are a piece of work, aren’t you, Mark? I though you a man enough to be able to admit your mistake and to be capable of saying you’re sorry, but oh boy, was I wrong? And I’m the bigot, right?

    But if the reality (for example shown by the indisputable study) is too much for you to handle, I don’t think I have much more to say to you. So please do continue to live in your bubble and dismiss any information that doesn’t fit you ideology. Keep seeing racism everywhere. That certainly increases the number of immigrants coming to this country. That certainly keeps the spirits high 😀

    P.S. I know you know you got your behind kicked verbally, of course. I know that eats you up inside. So why do it? Why lie to everybody? Do you even lie to yourself? Have a nice day, Mark.

  136. Desertgnu

    Having worked in the oil industry in HSE for a fair number of years I can tell you EXACTLY how immigrants have helped a (each) country with an oil industry tremendously. Think about it Elven. Answer your own question.Think before squawking… Try it, but choose carefully: you are not on firm ground on this one, again.

  137. Desertgnu

    Elven!

    Mar is right! I can just see how you are taking words you receive and churn them back – even my ”have a nice day/afternoon.” You REALLY do parrot. And yes, a few rather Freudian slips in your last disgrace addressed to Mark.

    You had a window of opportunity. You surprised me. What IS your worry about manhood Elven? Why would you even mention something like that? What iIS your penchant for insisting people are ”lying” all the time, and ”lying to themselves”? Yes, you are revealing. But when the time came to step up to the mark to show you ARE made of at least a little bit of the right stuff, you failed, miserably. That is what you need to take with you, and THAT is where you need to improve.

  138. Elven archer

    “You are fucking hilarious! So you have actually learned something from my comments to you, just too fucking arrogant to admit it!”

    Please answer the question.

    “-If you looked at this issue more closely, you would also know, from the SAME source, that Muslem families are actually also shrinking faster than families of other faiths”

    It was not the question here. It was simply the growth in 2004 – 2008. Nothing more. And while they maybe be shrinking faster there’s also a lot more to shrink. And then there’s also the immigration pushing continually more people in. It was only your fallacy that it was about the birth rates. It was only about the fact, the population growth no matter what the cause. So their numbers are growing. THIS is the estimate:

    “In the United Kingdom, for example, Muslims are expected to account for 8.2% of the population in 2030, up from an estimated 4.6% today.”

    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1872/muslim-population-projections-worldwide-fast-growth

    But I guess you saying “it ain’t so” counters that. LOL.

  139. Elven archer

    “And yes, a few rather Freudian slips in your last disgrace addressed to Mark.”

    Is “an utter bigot” a Freudian slip?

  140. Elven archer

    The only parroting I have done is that I’ve reflected some, but very little, insults thrown at me back at you. That it a fact that everyone can check from the above and it’s obviously makes you furious.

  141. Elven archer

    ““The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals.”

    I’m also waiting to see the error in this fact. Is it true or not? A simple enough question. Yes or no? Did it happen or did it not? Yes or no?

  142. Elven archer

    ”Utter bigot” is not a Freudian slip, no.” vs. “Freud is right – we call others what we are.”

    Can you spell logic? I can, even though my English is worse than you. But maybe it’s more about the intellect? Just a thought.

  143. Desertgnu

    I see you feel insulted now Elven. You had a window of opportunity. You were unable to rise to it. PS your misunderstanding of languages to discuss in is due to your reading, nothing else.
    Your harping on about Muslems is not worth a comment. You are forcing people into a group that many would not feel comfortable in, and are talking in unnecessarily insulting terms about people from very diverse cultures that you don’t even begin to understand. And here was me thinking Finns were right to be proud of their education system. What a walking advertisement you present yourself as. You know as what.

  144. Elven archer

    “So what the is your problem with Muslim families? What would you like to see, sterilization?”

    No, I would not. That is a silly question, a silly enough to be easily a straw man. I would like to see tighter immigration policies in Europe. And regarding my problem, I have no problem with Muslim families.

    Do you think that any families in Islamic countries have problems with Islam? Are things going very well for example regarding the human rights in the Islamic countries? The rights of the minorities, like sexual minorities? What about women’s rights? Well, where does that thing called Islam is coming from? Where do every religion come from?

  145. Elven archer

    “I see you feel insulted now Elven.”

    I’m waiting to see the error in the fact discussed: “The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals.”

    Is it true or not? Yes or no?

    “Your harping on about Muslems is not worth a comment.”

    How do chickens say in English? Well, just picture that sound. 😀

  146. Mark

    Elven

    I’m waiting to see the error in the fact discussed:

    It’s a fact that the German’s murdered 6 million Jews. However, if a German arrived at an interview for a job and upon sitting down opposite the interviewers and was immediately presented with this fact, would you regard it is a kind of bigotry?

  147. Elven archer

    “You are forcing people into a group that many would not feel comfortable in, and are talking in unnecessarily insulting terms about people from very diverse cultures that you don’t even begin to understand.”

    Care to name one insulting term I’ve used about people from diverse cultures? Just a one, please, to show that you are not lying.

  148. Elven archer

    “It’s a fact that the German’s murdered 6 million Jews. However, if a German arrived at an interview for a job and upon sitting down opposite the interviewers and was immediately presented with this fact, would you regard it is a kind of bigotry?”

    The study was not about the WWII, it was of the demographics in Britain 2004-2008. Was it true or false? Are you a man or a mouse?

  149. Mark

    Elven

    P.S. I know you know you got your behind kicked verbally, of course. I know that eats you up inside. So why do it? Why lie to everybody? Do you even lie to yourself? Have a nice day, Mark.

    An egotist as well!

  150. Desertgnu

    Elven archer

    This is all above you. You have distinctly and clearly used the word ‘Muslem” in insulting terms. Repeatedly. Again, and again, an again.

    The Phillipines have THE fastest growing population in the world, and are a predominantly Catholic country where divorce is illegal. Does that mean they represent ALL Christians?

  151. Mark

    I already told you that the study is true, though the title was very misleading, as ‘multiplying’ in English is usually used to refer to breeding, and this was not the case. A very very provocative wording. But regardless, it was usage in this debate that I found to be highly offensive.

    Freedom of religion and freedom to decide how many children you want to have are two absolutely fundamental freedoms of British society, and your presentation of this statistic in an immigration debate is absolutely a veiled attack on those freedoms. Let me add another word to my vocabulary for you – fascist!

    Now, your turn, answer the question you coward – would it be bigotry!

  152. Desertgnu

    Elven archer

    Care to comment Elven?

    ”Now last time I checked in the UK, freedom of religion was up there as a basic freedom, and probably one that is as important if not more important than freedom of speech. So anyone who says they are defending freedom of speech while at the same time showing absolutely no respect for the freedom of religion is an extremely questionable ‘champion of human rights’. Likewise, if that person defending free speech is only doing so to defend attacks on people of a different religion, then this should make you further suspicious that this person is the worst kind….”

    Thank you Mark. It is humbling, and hard to add to that paragraph. Elven, show some dignity here. This is your big moment of redemption; your window of opportunity. Don’t blow it.

  153. Desertgnu

    Elven

    Repeatedly answering:

    ”that was not the study” / ”that was not the question” does not constitute an answer, freedom of speech or no freedom of speech.

    Questions need answering Elven.

  154. Elven archer

    “An egotist as well!”

    With an ability to back it up. But not a mouse, Mark. Not a mouse. 😉

    “However, if a German arrived at an interview for a job and upon sitting down opposite the interviewers and was immediately presented with this fact, would you regard it is a kind of bigotry?”

    Yes, because the person even wasn’t alive when the shit happened. But those almost 40 % who want sharia now are alive and are acting based on their values leading to that goal if given an opportunity or choice. And their numbers are increasing very rapidly. Those Islamic countries, those societies formed by people’s values and beliefs, are quite real, aren’t they? And they are now.

    Many say that the majority doesn’t want that, that they are so secular, you have to just believe it. Well the 40 % is not a majority either so it is not an insurance it couldn’t happen. If they are so secular, why the societies reflect theirs values the way they do in there? And come on! We don’t have to be talking about some kind of revolution, political or not, just a very big minority living their everyday lives on the street level. Look for example Rosengård in Sweden. There you have it. They say there’s not so many religious bigots, but still the study showed they put the fear of god (their god, not necessarily yours…) in people there, they kind of rule the place by intimidating especially women. They have been riots and so on. Could you guess what is their religion?

    So basically you are saying me a bigot because I oppose strongly bigots. That’ funny.

  155. Elven archer

    “This is all above you. You have distinctly and clearly used the word ‘Muslem” in insulting terms. Repeatedly. Again, and again, an again.”

    Where? I asked you where. Are you just all talk no action? Well, everybody knows that by now, but it’s very entertaining to rub it in your face.

  156. Andy

    Desertgnu

    The correct version.

    Louxembourg has by far the biggest foreign population/immigrants, nearly all (100%) European citizens.

    Followed by Switzerland and Malta, nearly equally big. Switzerland, 80% European immigrants, 62 % of EU/EFTA citizens, 20 % other European states. Glancing at Norway it’s probably 60 % from Europe and 40% from the rest of the world. If you refer to GDP/capita it’s Louxembourg and Norway on top, with Switzerland following behind.

    What conclusion are you making out of this or what was your point in bringing up these?

    What racism are you referring to in Finland? Speech or other discrimination?

    What source of racism in Switzerland are you refering to? What is wrong with the policy of gaining citizenship in Swiss? Why do Switzerland need to give Europeans Swiss citizenships? And to others, you can vote without a citizenship?

  157. Elven archer

    “Freedom of religion and freedom to decide how many children you want to have are two absolutely fundamental freedoms of British society, and your presentation of this statistic in an immigration debate is absolutely a veiled attack on those freedoms. Let me add another word to my vocabulary for you – fascist!”

    Oh, silly you. Number of children? I have not said anything about that. I haven’t been against the freedom of religion either, quite the opposite actually. The Islamic countries are not known to be a Mecca of freedom of religion. Your tactics are most fun I’ve seen in ages. You make up things and then insult the things you just made up. How funny is that? Very.

  158. Elven archer

    “The Phillipines have THE fastest growing population in the world, and are a predominantly Catholic country where divorce is illegal. Does that mean they represent ALL Christians?”

    They represent the Phillippians? I’ll gladly accept that kind of thinking. So we CAN observe the countries of origin and took that as a representation of the people there? And then we obviously can think about that when making the decisions regarding the immigration policies. I’m glad we found some common ground.

  159. Elven archer

    “”that was not the study” / ”that was not the question” does not constitute an answer, freedom of speech or no freedom of speech. ”

    Show the error in the study. All talk no play, that’s the nature of Desertgnu.

  160. Mark

    Mark asked Elven.

    “However, if a German arrived at an interview for a job and upon sitting down opposite the interviewers and was immediately presented with this fact, would you regard it is a kind of bigotry?”

    After several attempts to get an answer, Elven replied

    Yes.

    So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?

    Let’s see how many times I have to badger you for an answer to this question.

  161. Elven archer

    “So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?”

    The matter of fact was irrelevant there. We are talking about immigration so the number of immigrants is hardly irrelevant, is it?

    “Let’s see how many times I have to badger you for an answer to this question.”

    If you ask questions about WWII and the German applying for a job now when we talked about the growth of the Muslim population in 2004 – 2008, that’s is so far out that you should not expect me answering in the future also. Would you ask me about that pink cosmic elephant too?

  162. Mark

    Elven

    I want to take this sentence of yours below out of its context for a second.

    They have been riots and so on. Could you guess what is their religion?

    And rephrase it slightly:

    “There have been riots and so on. Could you guess what is their nationality/age/religion?

    Now, would you be able to guess? No context whatsoever. Indulge me please, as I’m sure you will be entertained by my arguments and after all, you are not a mouse!

  163. Mark

    Elven

    Please answer the question Elven. If you are not afraid, then you will express your honest opinion and we can work from there and I will be allowed to demonstrate my thinking. If you are afraid of what I might be able to demonstrate about your thinking, then I understand why you will procrastinate and not answer.

    Mark wrote: “Let’s see how many times I have to badger you for an answer to this question.”

    So, second time….

    Would you ask me about that pink cosmic elephant too?

    You are afraid, I can see that. You are fully aware of where I am going with this line of argument, and we both know it is not in the direct of pink cosmic elephants!

  164. Elven archer

    Mark, is there any problems at all in Islam? In Islamic countries or in Europe? If so, do Muslims play any part in that? (I know it a silly question but do you…?)

    Mark, is the number of Muslims increasing in Europe? Yes or no.

    What do you think about this:

    “… in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country’s prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country’s population.”

    “In Britain, 11 percent of prisoners are Muslim in contrast to about 3 percent of all inhabitants, according to the Justice Ministry. Research by the Open Society Institute, an advocacy organization, shows that in the Netherlands 20 percent of adult prisoners and 26 percent of all juvenile offenders are Muslim; the country is about 5.5 percent Muslim. In Belgium, Muslims from Morocco and Turkey make up at least 16 percent of the prison population, compared with 2 percent of the general populace, the research found.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802560.html

    Is this news bigotry? I don’t even ask what you think of me quoting it, because I’ve already learned that the reality itself is “an utter bigot” and “a fascist”. Of course you spreading lies about Finland is not bigotry. 😀 And I don’t even expect you or Desertgnu to counter that although I expect you saying “it is not true, you parrot, because I say so, read the article”. LOL.

    But now, really, I must go. Have a nice day, you two, in your bubble, in your own reality.

  165. Mark

    Elven

    The matter of fact was irrelevant there. We are talking about immigration so the number of immigrants is hardly irrelevant, is it?

    I will answer this question, I promise, but first, I need to you to answer a couple more of mine, starting with the last one I asked:

    Mark asked: So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?

    Yes or no, please? I don’t think there is any grey area considering that you said yes to the previous question about whether it was bigotry, and this is simply a rephrasing of your answer.

  166. Mark

    Elven

    Mark, is there any problems at all in Islam? In Islamic countries or in Europe? If so, do Muslims play any part in that? (I know it a silly question but do you…?)

    Now you are avoiding answering the question by asking another question. I will answer all of your questions, but I want an answer to the question I put to you.

    But now, really, I must go.

    Wow…that’s convenient.

  167. Desertgnu

    Elven

    ”And their numbers are increasing very rapidly. Those Islamic countries, those societies formed by people’s values and beliefs, are quite real, aren’t they?”

    You know fuck-all what happen in ”those” Muslem countries, where radicalised Fundamentalists coming in from outside are most certainly NOT welcome. That also includes radicalised Christian fundamentalists by the way, who have committed atrocious rapes and killings in military uniform – and thus put their colleagues’ lives at risk from revenge attacks.

    When one knows fuck-all about something one keeps ones mouth shut. If you knew how much Finland is respected – clearly wrongly, with your ”values’ – in Saudi Arabia you might shut that claptrap of yours.

    Merely having a beard in some Muslem countries is enough to guarantee you won’t get a job.

    You moron. Don’t come back whining at me you have been insulted, and grow up. Your silly games are over.

  168. Elven archer

    ““There have been riots and so on. Could you guess what is their nationality/age/religion?

    Now, would you be able to guess?”

    No, because I have read it on the papers. I know, so I can’t guess. It have been reported in the media quite widely so use the google “rosengård riots”. And about the other thing:

    “Ranstorp and Dos Santos describe how “ultra-radical” Islamists attached to basement mosques “preach isolation and act as thought controllers while also maintaining a strong culture of threats, in which women in particular are subjected to physical and psychological harassment.”

    “”Newcomer families who were never particularly traditional or religious say they lived more freely in their home countries than they do in Rosengård,” the researchers write.”

    http://www.thelocal.se/17210/20090128/

    So remember, there can’t be anything going wrong with Islam. I really must go to bigot or something, I’m late already, your company is so entertaining. So have fun. Keep the spirits high and the borders open! Bye.

  169. Mark

    Elven

    So, you have made three replies and still not answered this very simple question:

    So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?

    I did ask how many times I would have to badger you to get an answer and so far, the answer is THREE….and counting.

    What are you afraid of, Elven?

  170. Desertgnu

    Andy

    Your ”correct” version is the same as mine, except that you keep referring to ”Europeans” as foreigners. Asking what is wrong with not giving Swiss citizenship to Europeans in Switzerland is a silly irrelevant question.

    No, foreigners are not permitted to vote, for silly things like highway extensions yes or no, until they get the ‘C’ permit. ‘A’ permit holders cannot even stay a whole year without going home for holidays, so that companies do not have to pay their holiday pay. ‘B’ permit holders fare a little better.

    If a Kurd is living in Switzerland as is denied a nationality he may very well have no nationality at all, as well as no family of course, with a high chance of them being gassed, shot or disappeared in another way in one of 3 countries at least. So yes, there is an issue of not giving them citizenship and leaving them stateless

  171. Elven archer

    “Wow…that’s convenient.”

    What question are you even talk about? This?

    “Mark asked: So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?”

    I have answered! You even quoted the answer.

    “The matter of fact was irrelevant there. We are talking about immigration so the number of immigrants is hardly irrelevant, is it?”

    So can read from there that it can depend on the context. Stating a fact about a waaaaaay different context can be some kind of bigotry. But I was talking about immigration in Europe and thus talking about the number of immigrants is as relevant as it gets. So it can’t be bigotry when I stated that fact in that context. But you said it was. What does THAT say about your bigotry? Happy? So now I take my coat and leave this computer so no more cheap shots and other funny business please.

  172. Elven archer

    Oh, right. It’s your turn to answer now. It was even before that but you just had to “first have some more questions” for me. I bet you never run of questions so you don’t ever have to answer. LOL. I’m now finally(!!) off to drink some beer and meet some girls.

  173. Mark

    Elven

    After Elven posted this question:

    “Look for example Rosengård in Sweden….They have been riots and so on. Could you guess what is their religion?

    To demonstrate to Elven that he is displaying bigotry towards religion, Mark rephrased this question into:

    “There have been riots and so on. Could you guess what is their nationality/age/religion?

    And then asked Elven if he would be able to guess?”

    Thinking that he was on safe ground, Elven decided to reply to this question (Elven has a habit of not replying to questions that very clearly lead to falsifying his many spurious claims):

    No.

    What this demonstrates is that when it comes to rioting among the human race, there is no known method for predicting beforehand the religion, age or nationality of that rioter.

    And yet, in a the context of a debate where Elven is expressing extremely negative views of Muslims, he feels that he can ‘prove’ his argument by presenting only one specific case of rioting in a Swedish town and asks a rhetorical question ‘could you guess their religion’. The implication of the answer is that Muslims cause public disturbance.

    However, as his affirmative answer to my question amply illustrates that it is not possible to predict whether a rioter was a Muslim in a ‘general context’. In other words, people of all religions (Buddhist included) are known to riot and so this is not specifically a Muslim problem, even though Elven attempts to suggest exactly that.

  174. Elven archer

    “No.”

    I knew it. I’ll be never able to go to the bar. You just lie and lie and lie.

    “No” vs. “No, because I have read it on the papers. I know, so I can’t guess.”

    Taken out of the context much?

    “To demonstrate to Elven that he is displaying bigotry towards religion, Mark rephrased this question into:”

    “displaying bigotry towards religion, Mark rephrased this question into”

    Is this how it goes, Mark? Just chopping of the words from the phrases?

  175. Desertgnu

    To the whiners.

    Just a word about how people behave when they are removed from their culture: to search for and find an article showing a certain percentage of prisoners in any given country is from one group is infantile. You can do the same by looking at how many African Americans, or Caribbean British people are in prisons. They also number much higher than their population%. So do Glaswegians from Scotland. And Irish in Britain. Your figures are useless when looked at globally.

    What are you trying to prove? When white people from Europe arrived in South Africa they institutionalized racism, calling it Apartheid. Does that mean all whites would adopt that system? Actually, judging by the behaviour of some expatriots from Europe/USA in the Middle East, who drink more, get into more violent incidents, become habitually very rude to locals because of the inner stress of being far from home, maybe the answer is yes, that many would,which is a pity really, because contrary to your phobia of foreigners, Muslems are very hospitable. And yes, even to their enemies. Yep. That is also part of Islam.

    Our European culture may have advanced since we infected blankets with the smallpox virus to get rid of native Indians in North America, the same Indians who initially kept the first settlers alive by showing them boiled pork was not going to help them survive. Of course that does not help Indians, and Mexicans, escape the same kind of comments you give about Muslems in this column.

    A Hungarian academic once remarked to me how sick he was of fellow Hungarians beating their chest and claiming to be ”pure” Hungarian, hater of all things foreign and victims of history, and told me how he would tell them to shut up and go back to their pure roots, and live in some tribe in Central Asia.

    Immigrants pushed the Welsh into Wales and he Picts north in GB, into what is Scotland. Immigrants to Finland pushed the Sami north as well. Want to be pure…?

    Actually, Central Asia is a great place. Kazakhstan is wonderful. The population of Kazakhstan is 40% Kazakh, with the rest being foreigners of many sources and locations. Kazakhs never have an issue with this, and they definitely serve as an example, if any do.

  176. Elven archer

    I have never ever met anyone who shows that much dishonesty in the conversation. I took it, you’re out of ammo? So you just lie and take even single words out the their contexts, chop of the phrases.

    I’m unable to guess because I know. I have read about a lot about what happened there. I know the answers to your question. YOU CAN’T FAKE A GUESS WHEN YOU KNOW. It would not really be a guess. This is madness. And I leave you to it satisfied that I know you know it too. 6-0, Mark. You know it too and it makes you furious. Better luck next time!

  177. Andy

    Desertgnu

    Your classification of lux, Nor and Switzerland is incorrect and different than mine. Your statement on unemployment is false accordin eurostat.

  178. Mark

    Elven

    Mark asked Elven

    : So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?”

    After THREE attempts, Elven gave something almost approaching on an answer:

    Stating a fact about a waaaaaay different context can be some kind of bigotry.

    Elvin has almost answered my question, but not quite. It should be clear, and with something like a grudging acknowledgment from Elven that it IS POSSIBLE for a statement of fact to be a bigoted statement even though the CONTENT of that statement is completely factual.

    In the example I gave, a German job applicant is told the fact that the German’s killed 6 million Jews. Elven agreed that this was bigotry, though his explanation was a little shaky, that she was not alive when it had been done. Actually, it has nothing to do with that. Even Germans that were alive were not responsible and so the idea that someone would have been refused a job because of the actions/decisions by other members of their national group is clearly prejudice. In this case, one can understand the prejudice and the ongoing feeling of anger towards the German people immediately after the war, but that does not change what it is, prejudice. After the passing of time, the injustice of that prejudice becomes clearer.

    Elven tried to argue that it was a matter of relevance. However, the person doing the interview might have tried to argue that the person was German and the Holocaust was done by Germans and so there was a direct relevance. But they would still be a bigot, as Elven agreed.

    In Elven’s case, Muslim’s have equally failed the job interview for equal citizenship in Europe (and Finland) and the reason given is very similar to the German being interviewed in my example who told A FACT about the Holocaust: Elven presents (on this thread) a list of horrible things that Muslims have done.

    Elven agreed that presenting facts relating to horrible things done by one group as a way of barring them from a job is bigoted. He did try to stretch this a little by talking about relevance, but that is one of the easiest things to argue. I.e. Person is German, Holocaust done by Germans = relevant. Elven’s logic is very similar. Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant.

    Elven at the same time tried to argue that his comment about Muslims multiplying was not bigoted. He said that he had not attacked at all the freedom of Muslims to to have babies or even their freedom to religion. And yet the impact of his FACT was that Muslims having babies was somehow a threat, and that Muslims practicing their religion is a threat. Now rather than deny Muslims these freedoms, which would be extremely difficult to defend, his answer very clearly is that we should simply not allow them into Europe.

    While he says that he is not attacking these freedoms, then why is their religion important, and why is it important to mention the fact that they are breeding at a higher rate? If these things are not relevant, then why mention them? If Muslims practicing their religion and Muslim having babies is not what he is against, then why does he mention them?

    One of the pillars of Elven’s argument is that Muslims attack women’s rights (even though these are protected by legislation) etc. Of course, like a typical man, he assumes Muslim women cannot fight for their own rights. In fact, rather than let them come to Europe and fight for their rights here, he’d prefer them to stay in those Islamic countries that he is so convinced do not respect their rights. In other words, rather than allowing Muslim women the freedom to come to Europe and have a greater chance of exercising their equal rights, he prefers them to stay in those countries where apparently they have no rights. Elven has a very funny way of trying to protect women’s rights.

    Another of Elven’s arguments is that Muslims appear to be more criminal. The first thing to be said is that there are various risk factors for crime, and the most well documented with evidence is the link between poverty and crime. So, if Muslims also happen to be among the poorest members of society, it would be no surprise that Muslims therefore get involved in crime statistically more. Not only that, but by focusing on their religion, he seems to forget something obvious – crime also breaks the laws of Islam. In other words, blaming ‘religion’ seems rather odd when the religion is telling its members very clearly that it is wrong. Could it simply be that those committing the crimes are just not very religious? In which case, blaming the religion for the crime is somewhat…stupid, pointless, bigoted and dishonest.

    So, to complete the picture:

    Elvin thinks: Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = discrimination (refused job/refused EU citizenship etc.)

    I have clearly shown that this is the logic of bigotry.

    Elvin is a bigot. He hides behind ‘facts’, but we have clearly shown, and he agreed, that that is NO DEFENCE, even though he used that defence over and over after being called out for his bigotry.

    After agreeing with the foundation of my argument, this analysis should present him with some very profound food for thought! Let’s hope that is the case.

  179. Mark

    Elven

    I have never ever met anyone who shows that much dishonesty in the conversation.

    This is a euphemism for: “I have never ever met anyone who could see through all my arguments so easily.”

    I take that as a compliment, though seeing how energetic you are to bamboozle people with your ‘facts’ and your ‘logical arguments’, I dread to think how much evil you have spread in your young life.

  180. Elven archer

    “He did try to stretch this a little by talking about relevance”

    I can’t believe I’m doing this but you lie so it’s very effective way to keep me here. I hate lying.

    Let’s keep in mind the context: the number of immigrants. Now, I quoted a study about the… drumroll please… the number of immigrants. Only in this blog it’s not relevant to the immigration.

    “Another of Elven’s arguments is that Muslims appear to be more criminal.”

    Where did I say that? Nowhere. So you just lied.

    “He hides behind ‘facts’, but we have clearly shown, and he agreed, that that is NO DEFENCE”

    No, we did not agree. So again, you lied. When it is out of context, it can (but not even necessarily is) be bigoting. The number of immigrants are not out the context when the context is the immigration. The results like those quoted from The Washington post are facts in Europe, and again relevant. They talk about a certain group of immigrants. And so on.

    You haven’t answered a single fact ABOUT immigration which is the context here. You just put words in my mouth and lie. No wonder you are so unhappy here in Finland.

  181. Elven archer

    “I take that as a compliment, though seeing how energetic you are to bamboozle people with your ‘facts’ and your ‘logical arguments’, I dread to think how much evil you have spread in your young life.”

    Where does that kind of hatred against me come from? From the same place where you get the energy to spread your propaganda about Finland? You lie about the things I said. You even cut the phrases to get the opposite.

    Is that how a good man behaves? Alright. Let’s agree. I’m the evil one. I tell facts, you lie. And I’m the evil here. Of course. Have a nice life in Finland complaining how we Finns are so evil. There’s obviously nothing wrong with your attitude. Just yesterday I found it sad that you (and I mean just you, not for example the foreigners, just you) have so many fallacies about Finland. I wanted to ease your fears, make you feel better and more confident. But after today, I’m glad that you think what you obviously think. 😀

    Okay, now I try to finally put an utter end to this nonsense and be on my way. So bye!

  182. Andy

    WHO IS THE WINNER?

    YOU KNOW FUCK-ALL WHAT HAPPEN
    SHUT THAT CLAPTRAP OF YOURS.
    YOUR SILLY GAMES ARE OVER.
    YOU MORON
    I FIND YOUR REPEATED CRYINGS OF THE HUMAN RIGHT OF ”FREEDOM OF SPEECH” FRANKLY INSINCERE

  183. Mark

    Elven

    “He did try to stretch this a little by talking about relevance”

    I can’t believe I’m doing this but you lie so it’s very effective way to keep me here. I hate lying.

    Your ideas about lying appear to be as false as your ideas about scientific reporting, social science methodology, and the character of Muslims.

    Let’s keep in mind the context: the number of immigrants. Now, I quoted a study about the… drumroll please… the number of immigrants. Only in this blog it’s not relevant to the immigration.

    Actually what you presented was not the current numbers of Muslims, but their rate of multiplication. Are you going to try to tell me that they are the same thing?

    Mark said: “Another of Elven’s arguments is that Muslims appear to be more criminal.”

    Where did I say that? Nowhere. So you just lied.

    So what was the long long list of statistics and media reports on the criminality of Muslims? Was that our Saturday night entertainment?

    “He hides behind ‘facts’, but we have clearly shown, and he agreed, that that is NO DEFENCE”

    No, we did not agree. So again, you lied.

    Actually we did. I presented you with the example of the German job candidate, and begrudgingly after several requests to answer, you admitted it was bigoted. That acceptance was reformulated into a general principle that in no way violated the logic of the example.

    So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?

    Elven agreed, though again he tried to argue about ‘the context’. That was not the point. The point was that he had earlier argued that because he was stating facts it could not possible be bigotry. I clearly showed he was wrong.

    Not only that, but I then showed the absolute similarity of his arguments against Muslims to those that led us to conclude that the use of ‘horrible facts’ against the character of the German job candidate was bigotry.

    This thread is now a public record of Elven’s bigotry.

  184. Desertgnu

    Andy

    In the kindest of terms that I can say, you are a simple-minded fool. ”who is the winner”? In capitals! 😀 I actually miss Elven! (goodness knows why)

    Your classification of Norway/Lux/Switzerland is the same as my grouping. My unemployment figures, those I gave, are easily correct, and as far as the rest of what I wrote to inform you, and make no mistake it did inform you, you haven’t even the guts to acknowledge.

    My dear Andy. You know fuck-all.

  185. Mark

    Elven

    Where does that kind of hatred against me come from?

    I wouldn’t flatter yourself thinking I feel that strongly about you. I dislike you, yes. And yes, it is personal, based on the character of your posts.

    But, first and foremost, I despise the way you use human rights as a smoke screen to attack the human rights of Muslims. You are a religious bigot masquerading as a human rights campaigner, and as such, you are scum in my mind.

  186. Mark

    Elven

    Have a nice life in Finland complaining how we Finns are so evil.

    You see, you are doing it again, turning my fight against you into a fight of me against Finland, when you do not for one second represent Finland. You stand here as an individual, and you have no right to hide behind your nationality and imply that I am at war with that nationality. My argument is with you…only a coward tries to hide behind their nationality.

  187. Mark

    Elven

    “Another of Elven’s arguments is that Muslims appear to be more criminal.”

    Where did I say that? Nowhere. So you just lied.

    You know, this really interests me, because this has been the thrust of your argument throughout this thread, that Muslims are trouble. But if in the end you have to back away from this claim because it clearly demonstrates that you are being bigoted, then you clearly have one less objection to Muslims being in Europe/Finland.

    Of course, we would almost all accept that committing a crime is a choice. Choice is an individual thing, for which we make individuals responsible. Therefore, crime is not a ‘group characteristic’. Indeed, it makes much more sense for poverty to be a motivator of crime than religion, especially of religion forbids it.

    You did not answer any of my substantive arguments, but instead ranted and raved about me lying about this and lying about that, when we went through a very simple and very clear process of analysis, to which you were party all along.

    Give them enough rope and they’ll hang emselves!

  188. Andy

    this is the text of Mr Desertgnu and is incorrect.

    TO THE WHINERS –
    LUXEMBURG AND SWITZERLAND HAVE BY FAR THE HIGHEST IMMIGRANT/FOREIGN POPULATION IN EUROPE. THEY HAVE THE BY FAR HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING, ALONG WITH NORWAY, AND THE LOWEST LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
    FINLAND’S IMMIGRATION POPULATION (MULTI-SOURCED) IS 2.9%, SAME AS SIERRE LEONE’S. SWEDEN, FRANCE AND GB ALL HAVE 3 TO 4 TIMES THIS % OF IMMIGRANTS THAN FINLAND, AND HIGHER SALARIES FOR NURSES, POLICEMEN AND TEACHERS (MAKES ME ADMIRE FINNISH TEACHERS EVEN MORE).
    FINLAND SHOWS THIS KIND OF RACISM WITH 2.9% OF THE POPULATION FOREIGN. AN CATASTROPHIC EMBARRASSMENT.
    SWITZERLAND ALSO SHOWS A DISGRACEFUL STATISTIC, IN THAT MOST OF THEIR IMMIGRANTS HAVE NO CHANCE OF BECOMING SWISS.
    THE PROBLEM WITH FINLAND IS DEEPER. MANY IMMIGRANTS I HAVE TALKED TO
(ALL MARRIED TO FINNISH WOMEN – SORRY GUYS, AND IT IS A TENDENCY, JUST AS BRITISH MEN MARRYING FOREIGN WOMEN IS)
FROM AFRICAN, MIDDLE EASTERN AND SUB-ASIAN COUNTRIES HAVE NO INTENTION OF BECOMING FINNISH – TO THE OPPOSITE OF SAY, IN SWEDEN. WHY NOT? NEED I LOOK FURTHER THAN THIS COLUMN FOR THE ANSWER?
    FINLAND, AND NORWAY WERE 2 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST NET EMIGRATION IN EUROPE OVER THE PAST 150+ YEARS UNTIL 50 YEARS AGO. MANY FINNS WENT TO USA, TO NORWAY ITSELF, SWEDEN AND AUSTRALIA. ALL COUNTRIES EASILY IN THE TOP 10 HIGHEST GDP IN THE WORLD. AND FINNS ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTED TO THAT HIGH GDP I AM SURE.
    DO NOT TELL ME MY KURDISH SHOPKEEPER FRIEND, WHO IS EMPLOYING A FINNISH ASSISTANT THAT WAS OTHERWISE UNEMPLOYED IS NOT ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FINNISH ECONOMY. DO NOT TELL ME THE GROUP OF FRIENDLY SOMALI WOMEN WHO HAVE OPENED A BOUTIQUE NEARBY ARE NOT ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTING TO THE ECONOMY ETHER, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF THE WHINERS LIKE YOURSELVES, FARANG, STEVIE, ELVAN ARCHER AND ANDY. THE ONLY HOPE I PERSONALLY HAVE IS THAT YOU STAY IN FINLAND, FOR YOUR NAIVE CONTRIBUTIONS ABOUT IMMIGRATION, MURDER AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ARE NOT EXPORTABLE PRODUCTS.

  189. Mark

    This reply to Elven is extremely important and I know that he has probably tried to hide it in the middle of this thread by making lots of silly replies. So here it is again.

    Elven posted this:

    The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals.”

    And then claimed several times that because it was a fact, it could not be bigoted.

    What about the national office that produced the study? Are they bigots too in there? And that professor of demographics studies, is he too an utter bigot?

    And later, this arrogant little quip:

    Show me the error [in the fact] and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

    Elven then went on to argue that in the context of this thread, the figures were relevant. However, Elven did not introduce the figures in a debate on demographics. He introduced the figures in a long post that was making a case for the negative aspects of Islam, often very sarcastically, as is his arrogant style.

    Not even when almost 40 % of the so called modern western muslims in Britain want religious laws. Obviously they are integrating so well and hey, just look at the islamic countries, you can’t find problems at all with islam. They are quite paradises on earth (just a few bad governments here or there, but the values of the people are just about right, right?), no human rights violations, no hatred against sexual minorities, no problems with women being not equal and so forth.

    and in the same post:

    That is mixing people with very different core values.

    And finished it off with this:

    It doesn’t shape the UK in an unwanted way but instead it just makes the country better, more multiculturalist?

    When first called a bigot, Elvin defended himself by presenting even more negative media reports about Muslim.

    So, in trying to show Elven the error of his bigoted ways, Mark asked Elven:

    So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?”

    After THREE attempts, Elven gave something almost approaching on an answer:

    Stating a fact about a waaaaaay different context can be some kind of bigotry.

    It should be clear, despite the grudging acknowledgment from Elven, that it IS POSSIBLE for a statement of fact to be a bigoted statement even though the CONTENT of that statement is completely factual.

    In the example I gave, a German job applicant is told the fact that the German’s killed 6 million Jews. Elven agreed that this was bigotry, though his explanation was a little shaky – that she was not alive when it had been done. Actually, it has nothing to do with that. There were Germans who were alive and yet were not responsible for those crimes and it would have been wrong to make them directly responsible. Many Germans fought against the Nazis.

    The idea that someone would have been refused a job because of the actions/decisions by other members of their national group is clearly prejudice. In this case, one can understand the prejudice and the ongoing feeling of anger towards the German people immediately after the war, but that does not change what it would be, prejudice. After the passing of time, the injustice of that prejudice only becomes clearer.

    Elven then tried to argue that it was a matter of relevance. However, the person doing the interview might have easily argued that the person was German and the Holocaust was done by Germans and so there was a direct relevance. But they would still be a bigot, as Elven eventually had to agree.

    In Elven’s mind, Muslim’s have equally failed the job interview for equal right to citizenship in Europe (and Finland) and the reason given is very similar to the German being interviewed in my example, who simply told a FACT about the Holocaust: Elven presents (on this thread) a list of horrible things that Muslims have done.

    Elven agreed that presenting facts relating to horrible things done by a national group as a way of barring a member of that national group from a job is bigoted.

    The bigoted reasoning runs like this: Person is German, Holocaust done by Germans = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

    Elven’s logic is very similar. Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

    Elven understandably tried to argue that his comment about Muslims multiplying was not bigoted. He said that he had not attacked the freedom of Muslims to have babies or even their freedom to practice religion. However, in presenting the demographic picture of Muslims in the UK as part of an argument against Muslim immigration, the effect is very much to violate the basic fundamental rights of Muslims.

    The clear intention of presenting his FACT was that Muslims having babies was somehow a threat, and that Muslims practicing their religion is also a threat. Now rather than deny Muslims these freedoms, which would clearly be extremely difficult to defend, his answer is that we should simply not allow them into Europe/Finland. Problem solved and he doesn’t have to get into that tricky business of suggesting we stop them practicing their religion or stop them having so many babies.

    One of the pillars of Elven’s argument has been that Muslims attack women’s rights (even though these are protected by legislation) etc. Of course, like a typical authoritarian man, he assumes Muslim women cannot fight for their own rights. In fact, rather than let them come to Europe and fight for their rights here, he’d prefer them to stay in those Islamic countries that he is so convinced do not respect their rights. In other words, rather than allowing Muslim women the freedom to come to Europe and have a greater chance of exercising their equal rights, he prefers them to stay in those countries where apparently they have no rights. Elven has a very funny way of trying to protect women’s rights.

    Another of Elven’s arguments is that Muslims appear to be more criminal. He denied saying this, but in this thread, he posted this:

    “… in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country’s prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country’s population.”

    Draw your own conclusions. The first thing to be said is that there are various risk factors for crime, and the most well documented with evidence is that of poverty. So, if Muslims also happen to be among the poorest members of society (which they are), it would be no surprise that Muslims therefore are overrepresented in crime statistics. Not only that, but by focusing on their religion, he seems to forget the obvious – crime also breaks the laws of Islam. In other words, blaming the religion seems rather odd when the religion is telling its members very clearly that it is wrong. Could it simply be that those committing the crimes are just not very religious? In which case, blaming the religion for the crime is somewhat…stupid, pointless, bigoted and dishonest.

    So, to complete the picture:

    Elvin thinks: Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination (refused job/refused EU citizenship etc.)

    I have clearly shown that this is the logic of bigotry.

    Elvin is a bigot. He hides behind ‘facts’, but we have clearly shown, and he agreed, that that is not an automatic DEFENCE against accusations of bigotry, despite suggesting that it was.

    Show me the error and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

    After agreeing with the foundation of my argument, this analysis should present him with some very profound food for thought! Let’s hope that is the case.

    This post now stands as a public record of Elven Archer’s bigotry.

  190. Mark

    This reply to Elven is extremely important and I know that he has probably tried to hide it in the middle of this thread by making lots of silly replies. So here it is again.

    Elven posted this:

    The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals.”

    And then claimed several times that because it was a fact, it could not be bigoted.

    What about the national office that produced the study? Are they bigots too in there? And that professor of demographics studies, is he too an utter bigot?

    And later, this arrogant little quip:

    Show me the error [in the fact] and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

    Elven then went on to argue that in the context of this thread, the figures were relevant. However, Elven did not introduce the figures in a debate on demographics. He introduced the figures in a long post that was making a case for the negative aspects of Islam, often very sarcastically, as is his arrogant style.

    Not even when almost 40 % of the so called modern western muslims in Britain want religious laws. Obviously they are integrating so well and hey, just look at the islamic countries, you can’t find problems at all with islam. They are quite paradises on earth (just a few bad governments here or there, but the values of the people are just about right, right?), no human rights violations, no hatred against sexual minorities, no problems with women being not equal and so forth.

    and in the same post:

    That is mixing people with very different core values.

    And finished it off with this:

    It doesn’t shape the UK in an unwanted way but instead it just makes the country better, more multiculturalist?

    When first called a bigot, Elvin defended himself by presenting even more negative media reports about Muslim.

    So, in trying to show Elven the error of his bigoted ways, Mark asked Elven to respond to a hypothetical scenario:

    It’s a fact that the German’s murdered 6 million Jews. However, if a German arrived at an interview for a job and upon sitting down opposite the interviewers and was immediately presented with this fact, would you regard it is a kind of bigotry?

    Elven squirmed, as he does, and eventually answered:

    yes

    Mark continued to elaborate the example by rephrasing this ‘yes’ into a general principle and asked Elven if he also agreed with this:

    So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?”

    After THREE attempts, Elven gave something almost approaching an answer:

    Stating a fact about a waaaaaay different context can be some kind of bigotry.

    It should be clear, despite the grudging acknowledgment from Elven, that it IS POSSIBLE for a statement of fact to be a bigoted statement even though the CONTENT of that statement is completely factual.

    In the example I gave, a German job applicant is told the fact that the German’s killed 6 million Jews. Elven agreed that this was bigotry, though his explanation was a little shaky – that she was not alive when it had been done. Actually, it has nothing to do with that. There were Germans who were alive and yet were not responsible for those crimes and it would have been wrong to make them directly responsible. Many Germans fought against the Nazis.

    The idea that someone would have been refused a job because of the actions/decisions by other members of their national group is clearly prejudice. In this case, one can understand the prejudice and the ongoing feeling of anger towards the German people immediately after the war, but that does not change what it would be, prejudice. After the passing of time, the injustice of that prejudice only becomes clearer.

    Elven then tried to argue that it was a matter of relevance. However, the person doing the interview might have easily argued that the person was German and the Holocaust was done by Germans and so there was a direct relevance. But they would still be a bigot, as Elven eventually had to agree.

    In Elven’s mind, Muslim’s have equally failed the job interview for equal right to citizenship in Europe (and Finland) and the reason given is very similar to the German being interviewed in my example, who simply told a FACT about the Holocaust: Elven presents (on this thread) a list of horrible things that Muslims have done.

    Elven agreed that presenting facts relating to horrible things done by a national group as a way of barring a member of that national group from a job is bigoted.

    The bigoted reasoning runs like this: Person is German, Holocaust done by Germans = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

    Elven’s logic is very similar. Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

    Elven understandably tried to argue that his comment about Muslims multiplying was not bigoted. He said that he had not attacked the freedom of Muslims to have babies or even their freedom to practice religion. However, in presenting the demographic picture of Muslims in the UK as part of an argument against Muslim immigration, the effect is very much to violate the basic fundamental rights of Muslims.

    The clear intention of presenting his FACT was that Muslims having babies was somehow a threat, and that Muslims practicing their religion is also a threat. Now rather than deny Muslims these freedoms, which would clearly be extremely difficult to defend, his answer is that we should simply not allow them into Europe/Finland. Problem solved and he doesn’t have to get into that tricky business of suggesting we stop them practicing their religion or stop them having so many babies.

    One of the pillars of Elven’s argument has been that Muslims attack women’s rights (even though these are protected by legislation) etc. Of course, like a typical authoritarian man, he assumes Muslim women cannot fight for their own rights. In fact, rather than let them come to Europe and fight for their rights here, he’d prefer them to stay in those Islamic countries that he is so convinced do not respect their rights. In other words, rather than allowing Muslim women the freedom to come to Europe and have a greater chance of exercising their equal rights, he prefers them to stay in those countries where apparently they have no rights. Elven has a very funny way of trying to protect women’s rights.

    Another of Elven’s arguments is that Muslims appear to be more criminal. He denied saying this, but in this thread, he posted this:

    “… in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country’s prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country’s population.”

    Draw your own conclusions. The first thing to be said is that there are various risk factors for crime, and the most well documented with evidence is that of poverty. So, if Muslims also happen to be among the poorest members of society (which they are), it would be no surprise that Muslims therefore are overrepresented in crime statistics. Not only that, but by focusing on their religion, he seems to forget the obvious – crime also breaks the laws of Islam. In other words, blaming the religion seems rather odd when the religion is telling its members very clearly that it is wrong. Could it simply be that those committing the crimes are just not very religious? In which case, blaming the religion for the crime is somewhat…stupid, pointless, bigoted and dishonest.

    So, to complete the picture:

    Elvin thinks: Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination (refused job/refused EU citizenship etc.)

    I have clearly shown that this is the logic of bigotry.

    Elvin is a bigot. He hides behind ‘facts’, but we have clearly shown, and he agreed, that that is not an automatic DEFENCE against accusations of bigotry, despite suggesting that it was.

    Show me the error and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

    After agreeing with the foundation of my argument, this analysis should present him with some very profound food for thought! Let’s hope that is the case.

    This post now stands as a public record of Elven Archer’s bigotry.

  191. Mark

    This reply to Elven is extremely important and I know that he has probably tried to hide it in the middle of this thread by making lots of silly replies. So here it is again.

    Elven posted this:

    The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals.”

    And then claimed several times that because it was a fact, it could not be bigoted.

    What about the national office that produced the study? Are they bigots too in there? And that professor of demographics studies, is he too an utter bigot?

    And later, this arrogant little quip:

    Show me the error [in the fact] and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

    Elven then went on to argue that in the context of this thread, the figures were relevant. However, Elven did not introduce the figures in a debate on demographics. He introduced the figures in a long post that was making a case for the negative aspects of Islam, often very sarcastically, as is his arrogant style.

    Not even when almost 40 % of the so called modern western muslims in Britain want religious laws. Obviously they are integrating so well and hey, just look at the islamic countries, you can’t find problems at all with islam. They are quite paradises on earth (just a few bad governments here or there, but the values of the people are just about right, right?), no human rights violations, no hatred against sexual minorities, no problems with women being not equal and so forth.

    and in the same post:

    That is mixing people with very different core values.

    And finished it off with this:

    It doesn’t shape the UK in an unwanted way but instead it just makes the country better, more multiculturalist?

    When first called a bigot, Elvin defended himself by presenting even more negative media reports about Muslim.

    So, in trying to show Elven the error of his bigoted ways, Mark asked Elven to respond to a hypothetical scenario:

    It’s a fact that the German’s murdered 6 million Jews. However, if a German arrived at an interview for a job and upon sitting down opposite the interviewers and was immediately presented with this fact, would you regard it is a kind of bigotry?

    Elven squirmed, as he does, and eventually answered:

    yes

    Mark continued to elaborate the example by rephrasing this ‘yes’ into a general principle and asked Elven if he also agreed with this:

    So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?”

    After THREE attempts, Elven gave something almost approaching an answer:

    Stating a fact about a waaaaaay different context can be some kind of bigotry.

    It should be clear, despite the grudging acknowledgment from Elven, that it IS POSSIBLE for a statement of fact to be a bigoted statement even though the CONTENT of that statement is completely factual.

    In the example I gave, a German job applicant is told the fact that the German’s killed 6 million Jews. Elven agreed that this was bigotry, though his explanation was a little shaky – that she was not alive when it had been done. Actually, it has nothing to do with that. There were Germans who were alive and yet were not responsible for those crimes and it would have been wrong to make them directly responsible. Many Germans fought against the Nazis.

    The idea that someone would have been refused a job because of the actions/decisions by other members of their national group is clearly prejudice. In this case, one can understand the prejudice and the ongoing feeling of anger towards the German people immediately after the war, but that does not change what it would be, prejudice. After the passing of time, the injustice of that prejudice only becomes clearer.

    Elven then tried to argue that it was a matter of relevance. However, the person doing the interview might have easily argued that the person was German and the Holocaust was done by Germans and so there was a direct relevance. But they would still be a bigot, as Elven eventually had to agree.

    In Elven’s mind, Muslim’s have equally failed the job interview for equal right to citizenship in Europe (and Finland) and the reason given is very similar to the German being interviewed in my example, who simply told a FACT about the Holocaust: Elven presents (on this thread) a list of horrible things that Muslims have done.

    Elven agreed that presenting facts relating to horrible things done by a national group as a way of barring a member of that national group from a job is bigoted.

    The bigoted reasoning runs like this: Person is German, Holocaust done by Germans = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

    Elven’s logic is very similar. Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

    Elven understandably tried to argue that his comment about Muslims multiplying was not bigoted. He said that he had not attacked the freedom of Muslims to have babies or even their freedom to practice religion. However, in presenting the demographic picture of Muslims in the UK as part of an argument against Muslim immigration, the effect is very much to violate the basic fundamental rights of Muslims.

    The clear intention of presenting his FACT was that Muslims having babies was somehow a threat, and that Muslims practicing their religion is also a threat. Now rather than deny Muslims these freedoms, which would clearly be extremely difficult to defend, his answer is that we should simply not allow them into Europe/Finland. Problem solved and he doesn’t have to get into that tricky business of suggesting we stop them practicing their religion or stop them having so many babies.

    One of the pillars of Elven’s argument has been that Muslims attack women’s rights (even though these are protected by legislation) etc. Of course, like a typical authoritarian man, he assumes Muslim women cannot fight for their own rights. In fact, rather than let them come to Europe and fight for their rights here, he’d prefer them to stay in those Islamic countries that he is so convinced do not respect their rights. In other words, rather than allowing Muslim women the freedom to come to Europe and have a greater chance of exercising their equal rights, he prefers them to stay in those countries where apparently they have no rights. Elven has a very funny way of trying to protect women’s rights.

    Another of Elven’s arguments is that Muslims appear to be more criminal. He denied saying this, but in this thread, he posted this:

    “… in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country’s prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country’s population.”

    Draw your own conclusions. The first thing to be said is that there are various risk factors for crime, and the most well documented with evidence is that of poverty. So, if Muslims also happen to be among the poorest members of society (which they are), it would be no surprise that Muslims therefore are overrepresented in crime statistics. Not only that, but by focusing on their religion, he seems to forget the obvious – crime also breaks the laws of Islam. In other words, blaming the religion seems rather odd when the religion is telling its members very clearly that it is wrong. Could it simply be that those committing the crimes are just not very religious? In which case, blaming the religion for the crime is somewhat…stupid, pointless, bigoted and dishonest.

    So, to complete the picture:

    Elvin thinks: Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination (refused job/refused EU citizenship etc.)

    I have clearly shown that this is the logic of bigotry.

    Elvin is a bigot. He hides behind ‘facts’, but we have clearly shown, and he agreed, that that is not an automatic DEFENCE against accusations of bigotry, despite suggesting that it was.

    Show me the error and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

    After agreeing with the foundation of my argument, this analysis should present him with some very profound food for thought! Let’s hope that is the case.

    This post now stands as a public record of Elven Archer’s bigotry.

  192. Elven archer

    “But if in the end you have to back away from this claim because it clearly demonstrates that you are being bigoted”

    I simply presented some statistics about the problems. I didn’t make such a claim so you lied. I didn’t say why was that, why was the higher crime rate. You can take it however you want it. But as long as I don’t make such a claim you can’t put words into my mouth. Well, obviously YOU can, but you really should not because it just makes you look like a liar.

    And remember that you are talking about your own interpretation of bigotry. I don’t share your view about that. If something is true, it can’t be bigotry when we talk about THAT thing, when the context is the thing which we are talking about. So for example let’s assume that poor people commit more crimes when we are talking about crimes. If that is true, saying that is not bigotry. IF same is true about some culture/religion/skateboarders/whatever, saying that can’t be bigotry either.

    The fact is there are some problems. Is this the thing again where the reality is bigoted? Or do you deny the article presenting the stats? It really doesn’t matter that much what you think about me, but you are more into it than commenting the problems the article showed. I wonder, why is that? I’m sure it’s not a smokescreen to direct the conversation off of those figures. 😀

    If you can’t solve them (whether it is because of poverty or whatever), why push this thing forward? Isn’t it a very irresponsible thing to do for everyone including those immigrants in jail the article mentioned? Nobody has solved them yet. Should we stop at least for a while and continue only when the causes are known and the problems can be solved? At the moment we know only one solution which would definitely work. That is the one I suggested.

    “Therefore, crime is not a ‘group characteristic’.”

    Statistically though some groups do it more often which was the point. The point of your phrase there… I don’t know. It’s just a weird thing to say with no relevance to the matter. Some groups have different characteristics like culture, values, norms, socioeconomic status and so on. For example some often say that young men are more often found guilty to a certain kinds of crimes for example assault rapes. Obviously very old males or women usually lack the physical strength to overpower the victims so “group characteristics” indeed play a part there, statistically. You mentioned poverty, that certainly is a group characteristic and you believe in it’s influence. Yet you deny your own words. Funny.

  193. Mark

    This reply to Elven is extremely important and I know that he has probably tried to hide it in the middle of this thread by making lots of silly replies. So here it is again.

    Elven posted this:

    The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals.”

    And then claimed several times that because it was a fact, it could not be bigoted.

    What about the national office that produced the study? Are they bigots too in there? And that professor of demographics studies, is he too an utter bigot?

    And later, this arrogant little quip:

    Show me the error [in the fact] and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

    Elven then went on to argue that in the context of this thread, the figures were relevant. However, Elven did not introduce the figures in a debate on demographics. He introduced the figures in a long post that was making a case for the negative aspects of Islam, often very sarcastically, as is his arrogant style.

    Not even when almost 40 % of the so called modern western muslims in Britain want religious laws. Obviously they are integrating so well and hey, just look at the islamic countries, you can’t find problems at all with islam. They are quite paradises on earth (just a few bad governments here or there, but the values of the people are just about right, right?), no human rights violations, no hatred against sexual minorities, no problems with women being not equal and so forth.

    and in the same post:

    That is mixing people with very different core values.

    And finished it off with this:

    It doesn’t shape the UK in an unwanted way but instead it just makes the country better, more multiculturalist?

    When first called a bigot, Elvin defended himself by presenting even more negative media reports about Muslim.

    So, in trying to show Elven the error of his bigoted ways, Mark asked Elven to respond to a hypothetical scenario:

    It’s a fact that the German’s murdered 6 million Jews. However, if a German arrived at an interview for a job and upon sitting down opposite the interviewers and was immediately presented with this fact, would you regard it is a kind of bigotry?

    Elven squirmed, as he does, and eventually answered:

    yes

    Mark continued to elaborate the example by rephrasing this ‘yes’ into a general principle and asked Elven if he also agreed with this:

    So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?”

    After THREE attempts, Elven gave something almost approaching an answer:

    Stating a fact about a waaaaaay different context can be some kind of bigotry.

    It should be clear, despite the grudging acknowledgment from Elven, that it IS POSSIBLE for a statement of fact to be a bigoted statement even though the CONTENT of that statement is completely factual.

    In the example I gave, a German job applicant is told the fact that the German’s killed 6 million Jews. Elven agreed that this was bigotry, though his explanation was a little shaky – that she was not alive when it had been done. Actually, it has nothing to do with that. There were Germans who were alive and yet were not responsible for those crimes and it would have been wrong to make them directly responsible. Many Germans fought against the Nazis.

    The idea that someone would have been refused a job because of the actions/decisions by other members of their national group is clearly prejudice. In this case, one can understand the prejudice and the ongoing feeling of anger towards the German people immediately after the war, but that does not change what it would be, prejudice. After the passing of time, the injustice of that prejudice only becomes clearer.

    Elven then tried to argue that it was a matter of relevance. However, the person doing the interview might have easily argued that the person was German and the Holocaust was done by Germans and so there was a direct relevance. But they would still be a bigot, as Elven eventually had to agree.

    In Elven’s mind, Muslim’s have equally failed the job interview for equal right to citizenship in Europe (and Finland) and the reason given is very similar to the German being interviewed in my example, who simply told a FACT about the Holocaust: Elven presents (on this thread) a list of horrible things that Muslims have done.

    Elven agreed that presenting facts relating to horrible things done by a national group as a way of barring a member of that national group from a job is bigoted.

    The bigoted reasoning runs like this: Person is German, Holocaust done by Germans = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

    Elven’s logic is very similar. Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

    Elven understandably tried to argue that his comment about Muslims multiplying was not bigoted. He said that he had not attacked the freedom of Muslims to have babies or even their freedom to practice religion. However, in presenting the demographic picture of Muslims in the UK as part of an argument against Muslim immigration, the effect is very much to violate the basic fundamental rights of Muslims.

    The clear intention of presenting his FACT was that Muslims having babies was somehow a threat, and that Muslims practicing their religion is also a threat. Now rather than deny Muslims these freedoms, which would clearly be extremely difficult to defend, his answer is that we should simply not allow them into Europe/Finland. Problem solved and he doesn’t have to get into that tricky business of suggesting we stop them practicing their religion or stop them having so many babies.

    One of the pillars of Elven’s argument has been that Muslims attack women’s rights (even though these are protected by legislation) etc. Of course, like a typical authoritarian man, he assumes Muslim women cannot fight for their own rights. In fact, rather than let them come to Europe and fight for their rights here, he’d prefer them to stay in those Islamic countries that he is so convinced do not respect their rights. In other words, rather than allowing Muslim women the freedom to come to Europe and have a greater chance of exercising their equal rights, he prefers them to stay in those countries where apparently they have no rights. Elven has a very funny way of trying to protect women’s rights.

    Another of Elven’s arguments is that Muslims appear to be more criminal. He denied saying this, but in this thread, he posted this:

    “… in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country’s prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country’s population.”

    Draw your own conclusions. The first thing to be said is that there are various risk factors for crime, and the most well documented with evidence is that of poverty. So, if Muslims also happen to be among the poorest members of society (which they are), it would be no surprise that Muslims therefore are overrepresented in crime statistics. Not only that, but by focusing on their religion, he seems to forget the obvious – crime also breaks the laws of Islam. In other words, blaming the religion seems rather odd when the religion is telling its members very clearly that it is wrong. Could it simply be that those committing the crimes are just not very religious? In which case, blaming the religion for the crime is somewhat…stupid, pointless, bigoted and dishonest.

    So, to complete the picture:

    Elvin thinks: Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination (refused job/refused EU citizenship etc.)

    I have clearly shown that this is the logic of bigotry.

    Elvin is a bigot. He hides behind ‘facts’, but we have clearly shown, and he agreed, that that is not an automatic DEFENCE against accusations of bigotry, despite suggesting that it was.

    Show me the error and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

    After agreeing with the foundation of my argument, this analysis should present him with some very profound food for thought! Let’s hope that that is the case.

    This post now stands as a public record of Elven Archer’s bigotry.

  194. Elven archer

    Mark, you just posted the same post 3 times. Did you bang you head against the keyboard or what?

    “This post now stands as a public record of Elven Archer’s bigotry.”

    No. It stands for the fact that you consider the reality as bigotry. There really are not any relevant arguments against the idea that culture, religion, behavior norms, values and things like that can have an impact. Actually there is very much knowledge saying they matter. Cultural studies and so on tell us that people are very much affected by these kind of things. But still you are so eager to yell bigotry if you think someone thinks they matter, that they affect people.

  195. Mark

    Hi Elven

    I am adding to the post each time, extending the narrative about what has happened and how you have attempted to hide and defend your bigotry. If you don’t like it, you know where the escape key is.

    I am not interested in arguing with bigots like you. It takes a huge amount of energy and time, especially given your habit to procrastinate and to deny the validity of well reasoned responses. However, this narrative summary stands as a very good example of how a self-proclaimed anti-immigrationist and also obviously an Islamaphobe attempts to defend what is obvious bigotry in their argumentation.

  196. Elven archer

    “Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination.”

    Your words, not mine. But where’s the discrimination? It is not a human right for everybody on the world to live in Finland. That’s why there’s such a thing as immigration policy in the first place.

  197. Mark

    Elven

    But still you are so eager to yell bigotry if you think someone thinks they matter, that they affect people.

    That is not true. I had hoped that I could have a constructive dialogue with you, but you are here as a slogan warrior, masquerading as a champion of human rights, when in fact you are working incessantly to undermine the human rights of Muslims.

    It is too late to start playing the sensible guy. You fucked up Elven and now the narrative of that fuck up is here for all to see.

  198. Mark

    THIS post is in part a re-post of previous posts. HOWEVER, I am adding to the narrative each time with the subsequent arguments that Elven has tried to make in defence of his bigotry.

    Providing this narrative is I think much more useful than trying to respond to long-winded stream of Islamaphobia to Elven spews out.

    I hope therefore you will forgive some repetition.

    It all began when Elven posted this:

    The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals.”

    Mark in very strong terms denounced the use of these statistics in a debate on immigration as bigotry.

    Elven then claimed several times that because it was a fact, it could not be bigoted.

    What about the national office that produced the study? Are they bigots too in there? And that professor of demographics studies, is he too an utter bigot?

    And later, this arrogant little quip:

    Show me the error [in the fact] and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

    Elven then went on to argue that in the context of this thread, the figures were relevant. However, Elven did not introduce the figures in a debate on demographics. He introduced the figures in a long post that was making a case for barring Islamic immigrants on the grounds of negative characteristics, often worded sarcastically, as is his arrogant style.

    Not even when almost 40 % of the so called modern western muslims in Britain want religious laws. Obviously they are integrating so well and hey, just look at the islamic countries, you can’t find problems at all with islam. They are quite paradises on earth (just a few bad governments here or there, but the values of the people are just about right, right?), no human rights violations, no hatred against sexual minorities, no problems with women being not equal and so forth.

    and in the same post:

    That is mixing people with very different core values.

    And finished it off with this further sarcastic comment:

    It doesn’t shape the UK in an unwanted way but instead it just makes the country better, more multiculturalist?

    In later posts he tried to defend these statements by saying:

    I simply presented some statistics about the problems. I didn’t say why was that, why was the higher crime rate. You can take it however you want it. But as long as I don’t make such a claim you can’t put words into my mouth.

    This is a very weak defence give that the absolute thrust of his argument is that Muslims are just not good enough to live with Europeans.

    So, in trying to show Elven the error of his bigoted ways, Mark asked Elven to respond to a hypothetical scenario:

    It’s a fact that the German’s murdered 6 million Jews. However, if a German arrived at an interview for a job and upon sitting down opposite the interviewers and was immediately presented with this fact, would you regard it is a kind of bigotry?

    Elven squirmed, as he does, and eventually answered:

    yes

    Mark continued to elaborate the example by rephrasing this ‘yes’ into a general principle and asked Elven if he also agreed with this:

    So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?”

    After THREE attempts, Elven gave something almost approaching an answer:

    Stating a fact about a waaaaaay different context can be some kind of bigotry.

    It should be clear, despite the grudging acknowledgment from Elven, that it IS POSSIBLE for a statement of fact to be a bigoted statement even though the CONTENT of that statement is completely factual.

    In the example I gave, a German job applicant is told the fact that the German’s killed 6 million Jews. Elven agreed that this was bigotry, though his explanation was a little shaky – that she was not alive when it had been done. Actually, it has nothing to do with that. There were Germans who were alive and yet were not responsible for those crimes and it would have been wrong to make them directly responsible. Many Germans fought against the Nazis.

    The idea that someone would have been refused a job because of the actions/decisions by other members of their national group is clearly prejudice. In this case, one can understand the prejudice and the ongoing feeling of anger towards the German people immediately after the war, but that does not change what it would be, prejudice. After the passing of time, the injustice of that prejudice only becomes clearer.

    Elven then tried to argue that it was a matter of relevance. However, the person doing the interview might have easily argued that the person was German and the Holocaust was done by Germans and so there was a direct relevance. But they would still be a bigot, as Elven eventually had to agree.

    In Elven’s mind, Muslim’s have equally failed the job interview for equal right to citizenship in Europe (and Finland) and the reason given is very similar to the German being interviewed in my example, who simply told a FACT about the Holocaust: Elven presents (on this thread) a list of horrible things that Muslims have done.

    Elven agreed that presenting facts relating to horrible things done by a national group as a way of barring a member of that national group from a job is bigoted.

    The bigoted reasoning runs like this: Person is German, Holocaust done by Germans = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

    Elven’s logic is very similar. Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

    Elven understandably tried to argue that his comment about Muslims multiplying was not bigoted. He said that he had not attacked the freedom of Muslims to have babies or even their freedom to practice religion. However, in presenting the demographic picture of Muslims in the UK as part of an argument against Muslim immigration, the effect is very much to violate the basic fundamental rights of Muslims.

    The clear intention of presenting his FACT was that Muslims having babies was somehow a threat, and that Muslims practicing their religion is also a threat. Now rather than deny Muslims these freedoms, which would clearly be extremely difficult to defend, his answer is that we should simply not allow them into Europe/Finland. Problem solved and he doesn’t have to get into that tricky business of suggesting we stop them practicing their religion or stop them having so many babies.

    One of the pillars of Elven’s argument has been that Muslims attack women’s rights (even though these are protected by legislation) etc. Of course, like a typical authoritarian man, he assumes Muslim women cannot fight for their own rights. In fact, rather than let them come to Europe and fight for their rights here, he’d prefer them to stay in those Islamic countries that he is so convinced do not respect their rights. In other words, rather than allowing Muslim women the freedom to come to Europe and have a greater chance of exercising their equal rights, he prefers them to stay in those countries where apparently they have no rights. Elven has a very funny way of trying to protect women’s rights.

    Another of Elven’s arguments is that Muslims appear to be more criminal. He denied saying this, but in this thread, he posted this:

    “… in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country’s prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country’s population.”

    Draw your own conclusions. The first thing to be said is that there are various risk factors for crime, and the most well documented with evidence is that of poverty. So, if Muslims also happen to be among the poorest members of society (which they are), it would be no surprise that Muslims therefore are overrepresented in crime statistics. Not only that, but by focusing on their religion, he seems to forget the obvious – crime also breaks the laws of Islam. In other words, blaming the religion seems rather odd when the religion is telling its members very clearly that it is wrong. Could it simply be that those committing the crimes are just not very religious? In which case, blaming the religion for the crime is somewhat…stupid, pointless, bigoted and dishonest.

    So, to complete the picture:

    Elvin thinks: Person is Muslim, horrible things done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination (refused job/refused EU citizenship etc.)

    I have clearly shown that this is the logic of bigotry.

    Elvin is a bigot. He hides behind ‘facts’, but we have clearly shown, and he agreed, that that is not an automatic DEFENCE against accusations of bigotry, despite suggesting that it was.

    Show me the error and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

    After agreeing with the foundation of my argument, this analysis should present him with some very profound food for thought! Let’s hope that is the case.

    This post now stands as a public record of Elven Archer’s bigotry.

  199. Elven archer

    “I am adding to the post each time, extending the narrative about what has happened and how you have attempted to hide and defend your bigotry. If you don’t like it, you know where the escape key is.”

    So you threat to flood this conversation until I’m gone. Obviously you have no shortage in your arguments. 🙂

    You know that kind of behavior is considered very rude and gets you normally banned? Of course, you run the show here so you don’t have to fear about that but I just wanted to make an observation about your style.

    I also take it that you don’t even try to not notice my arguments like before. You just flood and hope that nobody else sees them too? Yes, obviously who have nothing to hide flooding that collection of funny clips taken out of the context of yours.

    Mark, do you want me gone? You know, although I’m so hooked to your good manners and friendly attitude, I can quit. Would it be easier than you sabotaging your own blog with your flooding?

  200. Elven archer

    “That is not true. I had hoped that I could have a constructive dialogue with you, but you are here as a slogan warrior, masquerading as a champion of human rights, when in fact you are working incessantly to undermine the human rights of Muslims.”

    Constructive like calling someone “an utter bigot” because that someone quoted the news about the known study?

    What rights are those, Mark? What rights are you referring to?

    “It is too late to start playing the sensible guy. You fucked up Elven and now the narrative of that fuck up is here for all to see.”

    I have no objections of that, none whatsoever. Your clips taken out of the context are funny and imagine what that flooding makes you look like. I welcome your tactics. 🙂

  201. Marian

    I haven’t read the discussion here so my comment is off the topic, but maybe Enrique or someone can check IP of the posters or something and confirm to Desertgnu and anyone else who still is in doubt about this thing with my identity. It should be 100% clear by now that there was a misunderstanding so I don’t appreciate being bundled with Elven Archer.

  202. Elven archer

    “I haven’t read the discussion here so my comment is off the topic, but maybe Enrique or someone can check IP of the posters or something and confirm to Desertgnu and anyone else who still is in doubt about this thing with my identity. It should be 100% clear by now that there was a misunderstanding so I don’t appreciate being bundled with Elven Archer.”

    But Marian. There are proxys and that kind of stuff so you (meaning I or is it we?) can still be the same person. Look at the conversation above. Do you think there can be anything to battle that kind of doubt?

    Seriously. Everyone, Marian is not me. I’m not her. Think about it. What would be the point? Good luck, Marian, in these “dialogues” with these people. I am out the door now. I have still time to get some drinks.

    I will be writing here in this blog NEVER AGAIN with this pseudonym or as anyone else.

    Come on. The admin flooding all over the place. It’s ridiculous. How can you have a civilized conversation in this kind of place? So this is the very final goodbye. Bye.

  203. Mark

    Marian

    I am very sorry that my post has created confusion. Marian is NOT Elven Archer. I made that assumption after misreading one her posts on another thread.

    I think it is clear from your style of arguing that you are not that scumbag Elven Archer. 😀

  204. Mark

    Elven

    I have still time to get some drinks.

    You actually chose to debate with me rather than go out drinking! lol

    How can you have a civilized conversation in this kind of place?

    You had that chance and then some, and you blew it!

    I will be writing here in this blog NEVER AGAIN with this pseudonym or as anyone else. So this is the very final goodbye. Bye.

    Good. That means I can post the final narrative of our exchange. 😀 😀

  205. Desertgnu

    Marian

    My sincere apologies. The confusion came from Eleven archer mistakenly writing that he ”was” ”Marian” during one of his racist rants.

  206. Desertgnu

    Andy the whiner

    Thanks for the free publicity moron. Your racist kind cannot begin to know what is correct or incorrect, as you are forced to adapt every fact & figure to your racist views. Anyway, nice of you to quote my whole piece. Of course I stand by every word.

    Don’t do that ALL the time though. You’ll end up having to pay people!

  207. Andy

    Desertgnu

    The only good with your text is that it is all incorrect but you can correct it, by starting switching that racist-mode off.

    Start for example by saying.

    The Vatican, Andorra and Monaco have by far the highest immigrant population in Europe. (nationmaster)

    PS. Threat is an option of coward people. ou can live without it.

  208. Desertgnu

    Andy

    Andorra and Monaco!!!!!!! Fucking amazing!!! Fantastic!!!!
    You can only live there if you have a minimum threshold of goodness knows how many €,£,$!

    Amazing! You call all those people who use Monaco and Andorra for tax avoidance purposes ”IMMIGRANTS”?????

    Hilarious.

    Je connais les Monegasques tres bien, et en Andorre ils parlent Francais aussi, ils peuvent te dire….

    No, that isn’t Latin from the Vatican, it is French (with mistakes/no accents) telling you basically that Monegasque peope and those actually born in Andorra could tell you a thing or two.

    Have you seen the Vatican football team n the world cup? Its disgraceful isn’t it…a WHOLE team made of ”immigrants”! You should be on stage.

    Freedom of speech, dear Andy, freedom of speech…stop whining racist moron when your ”freedom of speech” goes against you…telling you you’ll have to pay if you copy peoples’ columns verbatim one day as a joke is not a threat you misguided fool!

  209. Andy

    Mais monsieur Desertgnu, une mauvaise jour???

    L’information de ‘nationmaster’ est une source qualifiée ici, confirmée par justice demon dans le sujet ‘Finnish police confirm ethnic background..’

    Liehtenstein et San Marino avant dans Suisse aussi.

    Peut-etre tu as besoin des vacances?

    PS! Mon amie finlandais habitaint avant quelques années en Monaco, sans beaucoup d’argent. Il traivaillaint dans un restaurant, comme quelque garcon.

  210. Desertgnu

    Tres bien Andy!!!!

    Mais soyons serieux! San Marino…Liechtenstein…Vatican…Andorra…Monaco…

    Tu veux me dire qui’il y a trop d’immigration…mais tu mentionnes trois etats qui sont presque a 100% ”immigration, et qui sont les plus riches!!

    Pas tres serieux Andy!

    Ton ami, oui, tu as raisons, mais…c’est vraiment, mais alors vraiment rare. Normalement c’est les Francais qui y travaillent le jour a Monaco et qui retuourne en France la nuit, les ”Frontaliers”.

    Nationmaster ..je ne dispute pas, mais c’est vraiment les moins sure, Nationmaster…regardes les critiques avant.

    Personellement je ne vois pas comment ces chiffes peu t’aider, vu mon ”100%” commentaire.

    Ciao belle blonde..seulement un expression…relax…

    Very good Andy!

    But let’s be serious! San Marin..Liechtenstein..Vatican…Andorra…Monaco

    You want to tell me that there is too much immigration…but you mention three states that are at nearly 100% immigration, and are the richest! (tax evasion being not quite the same as immigration frankly!)

    Not very serious Andy!

    Your friend, you are right, but…its really, but really rare. Normally it is the French who work in Monaco during the day and return to France at night, the ”Frontalliers” (the Borderers).

    Nationmaster, I don’t dispute, but they are really the least reliable. Nationmaster..look at my comment above.

    Personally I don’t see how the figures can help you, given my 100% comment.

    G’bye belle blonde…relax, its an expression we used to use

  211. Andy

    Desertgnu

    Mais mon amie. J’ai visité Liechenstein, ces’t un etat tres petit.

    Nationmaster, ils donnet simplement les chiffre, ces’t tout et ces’t la vie. Demain est une autre journée. Tu peut demander Justice Demon, il repondrais quelque question possible.

  212. Dueblöuto

    Eikös ole kuitenkin parasta odottaa poliisin raportteja?

    Jos Räsänen menisi pyydetylle linjalle niin aika paljon saisi huutaa lehdissä turkkilaisten, somalialaisten, irakilaisten, iranilaisten ja vietnimilaisten väkivaltarikoksista.

    • Migrant Tales

      Dueblöuto, tervetuloa Migrant Talesin.

      –Jos Räsänen menisi pyydetylle linjalle niin aika paljon saisi huutaa lehdissä turkkilaisten, somalialaisten, irakilaisten, iranilaisten ja vietnimilaisten väkivaltarikoksista.

      Tästä nyt puhutaan mitä tapahtui siinä viikonlopulla Oulussa. Miltä sinusta tuntuisi jos sinä olisit Muslimi?

  213. Mark

    I well remember this argument with Elven Archer about the implications and interpretations of Putnam’s work on trust and diversity in US communities. What I didn’t know at the time was that a Nordic research team had already shown in response to Putnam’s call to test the results in other countries that this was not found in European countries.

    The upshot of Putnam’s research was that there was a great deal of ethnic tension in the US and that this was seen especially in areas where citizens were more likely to have to ‘tolerate’ other ethnicities. The white flight phenomenon is well documented, but perhaps what is less obvious is how many people stay in diverse communities with a ‘desire for flight’, but various factors make that difficult.

    Anyhow, Europe’s experience is different. Data from 28 countries in Europe did not reproduce the findings in the US. Stick that in your pipe Elven!

Leave a Reply