Darling Baba (Dad): You no longer need a visa to Finland

by , under Dana

MT comment: I was sorry to hear from Dana that her father passed away. Two months ago her mother left her. She had been waiting for three years to bring her parents to her side under Finland’s strict  family reunification law, which was tightened in 2011. Finland shows its human face by accepting refugees but then it reveals a darker side, where minors and relatives are forced to live separated indefinitely from their loved ones. 

In Dana’s case, it’s over for her to reunite with her parents in Finland.

We wish our heartfelt condolences to her and her family. 

____________

By Dana

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

I’m full of tears

But

I can believe it, i can, even if i am able to… i am strong that’s why i can

Everything can happen in a nightmare…Finland is a nightmare.

It is a nightmare …but it can’t be real …so i do not need to be sad… soon, yes, soon, someone will call me and i will wake up from this nightmare with my family.

My father, my Baba, is now gone, too.. he could not wait even two months after my mother passed away to join her,

Oh Baba u were so sad u couldn’t wait even 2 months… do u know that u made the Finnish law so happy??? Oh yes, u made them all happy… they all hate me, Baba, ur case is still in court… Can u believe it, Baba?????

Sigh.

My Baba Love:

Today is 25.7.2013 and it is the 21st century… but Finland doesn’t know in which century its nightmare is.

Who knows that?

Last night he left this life in the hands of my young brother…oh sooooo sad…my Mama left  28.5.2013, and now my Dad, on 24.7.2013

Am  i in shock??? I still don’t know… now i am standing up for my rights that’s the only thing that i’m aware of.

He met my Mama  last night, what a pleasure, oh sure… i’d love to see them.

I’m going through difficult times, a hard situation.

My family reunification case is gathering dust in a Finnish immigration court… so is this how mean the law is?

Who can exactly explain what is the aim of Finnish law,  not to me but to her/him?

My body is in Helsinki  and my spirit is in Iran… my brother is alone there…

Oh darling cute brother how much i miss u… be strong, be strong.

I should be there with u now… but i cant even move at this moment from my chair.

I am certain of my nightmare,  how is it possible that i have so many problems, suffering such hard times??? Who am i? How can I carry this heavy load? What am I made of??? Am i flesh and bones??? I can’t believe it… i need to wake up from this nightmare and suffering.

I so much need to see my Dad again…. i need him..

Why isn’t there anyone in Finland who takes responsibility for what happened to my parents and my tragedy?

Why doesn’t anyone answer me???

I told you all this because my life is a nightmare.

Finland is a nightmare.

Finland…Nightland

Hey, can somebody tell me in what century i’m living in in Finland?

  1. Mark

    Dana – my deepest condolences on the loss of your dear father.

    My goodness, you have had such a lot to deal with in the last few months. Life is cruel at times.

  2. Brave

    Mark called my name… and I Called Him Human… a human called my name… a human saw me alone on MT…only a human knows what is a pain,

    My face is a land under a lake
    Lake of my tears
    I wont laugh again
    I cant smile to Finland…I wont… never
    MY parents are in other world… their body is under dust… and their case is in the Finnish court…
    And GOD is my witness
    And GOD sending judges to them… who judged my parents with their free will… who makes me cry… who push my face under salty rain, a rain of tears,
    My face is a land under a lake
    A salty lake
    A salty lake

  3. Brave

    Yossie,
    It was not will of GOD but will of Finnish racist law.
    They made walls between me and my family.
    So you mean those who made negative decision on my case were children of GOD??? I tell you who they are… they are children of ugly satan.
    GOD is my beautiful creator who gave me two beautiful parents,,, and i tell you yossie GOD cares alot about me.
    Also let me tell you that i can see your face and your thoughts about myself… You are happy… you are very happy in my sad/land…thank you Yossie.
    MY blogs about my Mama and Baba are two grave on MT… Yes now MT has 2 graves and
    I see i made many people happy with my graves???
    You people don’t need attack me with your harsh words… your silent is a big attack on me even i am not afraid… even your attacks will back on yourselves.
    Yossie don’t you appreciate me and my two graves???Because i made you and many people happy…
    So come on now… you all my enemies…
    Come and applause for me
    I am your hero
    Tragedy hero of you and your sleepy century
    Come and applause for me… for i make you all very busy, happy and exciting with my real tragedy stories, with my 2 fresh graves…
    Yet my Mama/Baba graves are wet wet….
    Yet their bodies has meat and blood and most important a heart.
    And my eyes laugh at u all…because you forget death is a fact and will catch everyone… who knows death???

    Now yossie enjoy Ur dance on my 2 graves on MT u and all my enemies and don’t forget that it was me who made you such a happy time…
    Yes me
    me with my salty lake
    and my tired eyes are able to see ur hateful silent faces
    I am not alone
    GOD is with me
    And witness between us
    Soon Finland will cry

    • ohdake

      What exactly is racist in the law – i mean literally, which part of the law is racist? Or is the fact that things didn’t work out for the best for you making the law racists? Unless you actually have evidence or proof of such then there is little point in exaggerating the matter, it will actually only backfire for you. Finns don’t look kindly upon people who lie or keep exaggerating – case in point being J. Bäckman who was caught red-handed from lying to the media which effectively terminated all credibility he might once have had in Finland. If you want to be taken seriously you need to be serious – writing bad poetry in blog pages is not that. That Finns are silent – they are that to everyone – has nothing to do with racism or hatred, to be honest your perception that it would be such things is IMO just a manifestation of your cultural intolerance.

      Don’t get me wrong here, I’m sorry that your parents have passed on. But your comments certainly do not make any credit for them or for you. First you imply that all people who disagree with you are your enemies and then conclude with “Soon Finland will cry”. Which is sort of rhetoric i would expect to hear from Breivik. Your comments which imply that only you are entitled and that people who stand on the way of your wishes are ‘children of ugly satan’ are not any better either.

  4. Yossie

    Dana

    Finnish racist law is stronger than will of GOD? Do you insult GOD Dana?

    You said it yourself: GOD cares alot about me. God cares about your parents and this was his will. Why are you crying when you see GOD’s will happening?

  5. Joonas

    First of all; Sorry to hear about your lost, my condolences. I’m not a religious person myself, far from it, but I find it respectful that you can keep your faith even during this hardship. I believe many others would loose all hope in the same kind of situation.

    “So you mean those who made negative decision on my case were children of GOD??? I tell you who they are… they are children of ugly satan.”

    You might feel this way, but it would be good to remember the people who made the negative decisions are just doing their work – it is nothing personal against you or your family. Two years ago 3567 refugees tried get to Finland, but 1271 persons were accepted (about 35%). It probably doesn’t comfort you, but I’m just giving you a perspective.

    • Brave

      Thank you Joonas,
      I am not a religious one… GOD is not religion, GOD is GOD and has nothing to do with religion… i just believe in GOD…one GOD …My darling creator who gave me opportunity to come to this world and taste this life, who gave me mother and father and build my cells from them both…
      GOD is not human and created all of us and a big universe…
      Who telling me go and look at ur face in the mirror u will see Mama and baba there.
      Who save their voices in me for always.
      GOD is real and the only fact… GOD gave me free will and i chose GOD before i feel myself alive and in this world… before my parents make decision to give a birth to me.
      GOD is my teacher… my lord… my world
      GOD is my only comfort…GOD is my all support
      …………….

      They just doing their work???? NO Joonas NO and NO and NO and a big NO for always
      When u speaking like this about them
      Is like
      U telling me
      Let Finnish law kill ur parents for u… let they do their job in front of you.
      U Joonas make it so easy… u can because it is me who lost her parts… two worthy of her parts… this is my pain and u cant even touch one of my tears for understanding how heavy and hard is my pain …
      They never gave me an appointment time to meet them… i asked this so seriously from my lawyer… it never happened…
      Its not their job to be proud about their talents and knowledge… they did not know me and my situation…
      but they knew very well my rights and so they put my rights under their own fleet with their own free will…
      That was not their job
      Its very wrong of Finland to tell… we do our job…
      No/one take responsibility
      So am asking u Joonas
      Who take responsibility for this crime???
      Even u tell they done their normal job.. but it cant make them feel comfort in their heart
      What we are doing in this universe will back on us
      Who has power… law on you Joonas
      Am asking this to u…
      U can do whatever u want with law… but law is just some words and cant make u to follow it… it is you who make decision… it is you Joonas who is his own master..
      Law of Finland is a few words but racists people made it against me…
      They could give me my right…they knew that’s my right but they abuse me and my situation…they abused my hard times in system… they played game with me…

      Perspective..thank for that
      ……
      They are killer

  6. Brave

    Yossie,
    Finnish racist law is stronger than will of GOD? Do you insult GOD Dana?

    You said it yourself: GOD cares alot about me. God cares about your parents and this was his will. Why are you crying when you see GOD’s will happening?

    Who told Finnish racist law is stronger than will of GOD???
    Do you know what are you talking about Yossie???
    GOD is almighty
    I love GOD very very deeply…I do not need tell this here because GOD knows everything about me… I telling this to you Yossie because u need to know that am not a weak human so i won’t shake with your words.

    I am crying because i can not stop my tears… i am crying because it was not a normal destiny like every one has… i lost them after 7 years i could not see them… i lost my both parents one by one in a short time… not even 2 months… u understanding me now???
    I am crying and putting my words on MT because i could not see their funeral… not even their grave…
    I made two grave for myself on NET… on MT…
    I am crying because i have nothing from my Baba and what i got from my Mama is a dress that i cant touch it… it will make a earthquake around me if i even look at…
    I am crying because i am a child of a pair human who waited, waited for me and waited for me with hope and finally could not see their only daughter e…. because my heart is broken… because it is very heavy and hard situation for me… because i am one and have no supporter here for me… people when lose some one they come many people around them… at least one two three… i have no/one…. so
    How can i control my tears???
    My tears dont listening to me… they are out of my control… now they wont listen to me… they want be free … my tears are my pains… my tears are my voice… my tears are my broken wishes…
    I am crying because what i done in Finland… from working for free… from studying Finnish day by day … from working for real money… from working for voluntary was because
    I had hope to see my family one day
    And then
    Finnish law
    Insulted me
    kept me in jail
    Did beat me with different methods
    Made my life like a horrible nightmare
    and now
    I see they all feel happy and laugh at me…
    Even on MT people come and see my 2 graves and laugh at me and attack me with their silent
    I did not build two graves on MT for condolence from you people… i do not need anything… i want nothing… what i want i have it… and that’s GOD, GOD wont die and was, is and will be forever.
    But i just build my parents grave on MT because i miss my parents and love them so much and try to help myself…
    I am crying because my heart is crying
    I am crying because i am a loyalty human… because i know i lost my worthy gifts that GOD gave me one day.
    I am crying because i cant buy parents for me in any market.
    I am crying because there are not much human on this planet earth
    I am crying because even on net people have no mercy on each other
    And
    I am crying because i miss my beloved one so much… i miss their voices… i miss my mama words when she was talking to me like am still a child and telling me about my face…
    I am crying because how post could bring me her dress and comb but Finland could not accept her,…
    I am crying that what is the mean of this… easily by post i got her dress but after three years i broken in me and she gone????
    How long she waited for me… u know that????
    It was very difficult for her… she was sick sake of me for a long time…
    She was a mother…
    Not every mother is like mine
    Not every mother is loyalty
    I am crying because i have not her address
    I have not her smell with me
    i have not her stories in my ears
    i have not her touch
    i have not her words
    i have not her
    I lost them Yossie
    Its not easy for me
    I am swimming in my life in my ocean i want help me…
    Now i am swimming… its hard
    I am searching a ship for me
    And i am crying because
    GOD talking to me and telling me LOVE YOU .

  7. Yossie

    Dana

    GOD is almighty!!!

    if GOD had wished your family to be here, they would be here. That wasn’t GOD’s will however. What happent to your parents is what GOD saw fit for them, because GOD is almighty.

    Your hardships? GOD saw those fit for you as GOD is almighty and could have it otherwise if he wisehed, but he didnt. It was GOD’s will!

    • Joonas

      Even I find deeply religious people often possessing “unique” personalities, I think now is not the good time to twist the knife in the wound. Little discreet is in place, even the person you are talking might not be.

    • Brave

      Yossie,
      GOD is very cute and kind… he never make me cry… it is cruel people who changed my destiny and made me a fountain of tears.
      GOD is zealous
      GOD is warm, very friendly with a person who is crazy for GOD… so GOD never try to hurting me because GOD loves me.
      All i get from GOD is my comfort…is safe…

  8. Brave

    Even I find deeply religious people often possessing “unique” personalities, I think now is not the good time to twist the knife in the wound. Little discreet is in place, even the person you are talking might not be.

    Joonas,

    Its not about twist the knife in my wound…No worry its okay
    I believe in GOD because its so clear that there is GOD and also its very clear that GOD is almighty…
    Even if i was not a believer it was not important for GOD, ( I mean it could not harm GOD… nothing can hurting GOD, its me who needs GOD but GOD does not need me so its me who must go and find GOD in her searches, its me who should walk with fact and its me who needs love ) BUT it was a big mistake from me and my life… i could not grow in GOD and understand anything…then i just could stay in a corner of my life and finally live this world with empty hands
    I need to learn… i need to know, i need many things that i cant explain them ( even words and my words are not enough to explain these ) and all comes from GOD so i truly and very emergency need GOD… I need GOD for always and i cant be alive without GOD’s love.
    I am not a handmade of humans or myself… no/one could create me except GOD… My breath one by one are delicious to me and a new life for me… who could give me such a pretty brain and a cover on my brain to keep it safe??
    GOD gave us a pair of eyes that we can see everything with their colours… even we could see only black and white it was very perfect…and again i was thankful.
    I am not stupid to believe that universe came accidentally for nothing can come so perfect and beautiful by accident.
    Even am very very sad… even hardly can open my mouth… even walls and streets asking me oh ur so sad…. but i am always okay and full of energy to speak about my dearest one… GOD is my dearest….
    GOD created me from nothing… what i was???
    There was not me
    BUT
    GOD created me and made me free to chose… because gave me free will…it is a very great gift for me
    It is a love in me for GOD… Love is not lie
    No/one can say a lie to itself.

    sigh
    and now
    am very sad because i lost two perfect gifts that GOD
    gave me when GOD sent me on earth…even i know both only and only left their body… they never dead they just started other life but
    I am a human( okay yes i know am not invisible in Finland but it cant change the fact there is me and am alive am not only a name and ID) i miss them… oh they knew they wont see me again in this world again…
    sigh its very sad…
    Oh can i wake up from this nightmare???I cant watching me any more under pressure…
    I am sad because GOD gave them to me… i want to have all things GOD gave me for ever…
    ……..
    I am trying to help myself… but this I is me and this I itself needs HELP.

  9. Brave

    ohdake – undocumented entry on July 31, 2013 at 8:02 am
    What exactly is racist in the law – i mean literally, which part of the law is racist? Or is the fact that things didn’t work out for the best for you making the law racists? Unless you actually have evidence or proof of such then there is little point in exaggerating the matter, it will actually only backfire for you. Finns don’t look kindly upon people who lie or keep exaggerating – case in point being J. Bäckman who was caught red-handed from lying to the media which effectively terminated all credibility he might once have had in Finland. If you want to be taken seriously you need to be serious – writing bad poetry in blog pages is not that. That Finns are silent – they are that to everyone – has nothing to do with racism or hatred, to be honest your perception that it would be such things is IMO just a manifestation of your cultural intolerance.

    Don’t get me wrong here, I’m sorry that your parents have passed on. But your comments certainly do not make any credit for them or for you. First you imply that all people who disagree with you are your enemies and then conclude with “Soon Finland will cry”. Which is sort of rhetoric i would expect to hear from Breivik. Your comments which imply that only you are entitled and that people who stand on the way of your wishes are ‘children of ugly satan’ are not any better either.
    …………
    ohdake ur talking fake fake …fake in fake
    go and read my all blogs to understand what i mean about racist…
    Finnish law is a racist and our anger at me cant delete this fact… go and read MT blogs carefully and find what does mean racist in Finland.
    Oh what a holy one… u dont know anything about racist in Finland… have u been sleepin this country or You are one of those cruel people in my life?? who made me a nightmare????
    Stop it your support for racist law… this cant help you and Finland any more… yes Finland will cry soon…
    I am a victim of your racist law a victim in Finland a racist country… all know Finland is a racist country and now u want cover it with a fake comment against me?????and then u open ur wild mouth and calling me Breivik????
    Who do u think you are??? U r not a judge for me… go and judge yourself an your generation… don’t talk about my parents… I dont need ur sorry word…
    Breivik is you and all killed my parents in front of my eyes… u understand it now???
    U and them are unbelieveable people…
    I saw many people like you in Finland… u r not a new one for me
    Ohfake fake you are.
    ………………
    What are u telling me ??? U with ur sleepy head …
    (it will actually only backfire for you)back fire for you not me… am safe in GOD …..( Finns don’t look kindly upon people who lie or keep exaggerating – case in point being J. Bäckman who was caught red-handed from lying to the media which effectively terminated all credibility he might once have had in Finland) What what??Learn to think before u open ur sad angry thoughts against me I can smell ur racist mind from far… i don’t search kindness from Finns … secondly ur not a lawyer for Finns… and am not talking about all Finns how many times i should tell this… DO u think am here for ur kind words??? what a simple you are and very proud of Ur yellow colour… let me tell u am not interested about your colour at all for colour has no place in my mind and life so don’t wait for my praise… i wont praise u and Finland … never NEVER (If you want to be taken seriously you need to be serious ) OH dont u have more order??? You are nothing for me… you are a small enemy of me that is under my feets… be aware, am very serious how cant u see this… and as i told u i dont need ur support, I AM NOT HERE for ur support or acceptance because i feed up……. HUH u wordship yourself in the middle of day… who u r to take me sriously or not? who u r ??? u jump with ur head on a crave that i made for my dad and attacking me with names??? U r liar not me… why shall i come and tell lie on a support site MT for what??? Why shall i put my times on lie… do u think every body is thinking like u… lie is in ur heart and u… ur face is lie… ur ID is lie… ur being human is lie… ( writing bad poetry in blog pages is not that) NOW what u want… a wordship poetry about Finalnd , listen to me u wont see this kind of poetry from me because i wont work against myself and am not searching a benefit from Finalnd… ( That Finns are silent – they are that to everyone – has nothing to do with racism or hatred) talk for yourself not all Finns are Finns elected u to come and dance on my Dad grave??? you yourself dont know all Finns and i did not tell all Finns and ur not a juge so just sit on ur broken chair and close ur mouth on my Baba grave, dont u see am under pressure and have a very hard time… cant u feel anything about being father or mother,… dont u have any feel about those words??( to be honest your perception that it would be such things is IMO just a manifestation of your cultural intolerance)
    to be honest??? what u know about being honest… who comes on grave and attack an alone woman on her cemetery???
    who called you, who wanted ur narcissistic idea???
    Who asked for ur IMO… go and tell ur IMO at the mirror for yourself u deserve it not me, if you are an honest person u dont attack me at least in this nightmare.
    ……..
    J. Bäckman… i don’t know even who is he and here is my dad’s grave …what i have to do with this guy and Breivik????
    tell me ohfake ohfake…
    U made a big joke of yourself in this cemetery… people don’t go to cemetery to attack each other but for condolence and being kind… this is one of my important lessons for u… now tell me thanks…

    U have no right to speak about my parents… when u open ur eyes u have all u need… u dont know whats the meaning of carrying many problems in same time… so Breivik dont come close to a person like me if u dont know how to talk to me… be careful … am not kind of foreigners to praising u and closing my mouth. and u cant tell me shut up… i wont shut up… u cant chnage me with ur ideas… u cant washing my brain… wait again i ahve a comment for u
    u were talking about my parents…. u r so hateful and enemy

  10. Brave

    Ohdake or ohfake???
    better u find yours a normal name
    Don’t get me wrong here, I’m sorry that your parents have passed on. But your comments certainly do not make any credit for them or for you. First you imply that all people who disagree with you are your enemies and then conclude with “Soon Finland will cry”. Which is sort of rhetoric i would expect to hear from Breivik. Your comments which imply that only you are entitled and that people who stand on the way of your wishes are ‘children of ugly satan’ are not any better either.
    …..
    U r a big liar…
    U r not sorry at all
    U yourself showed me that in Ur hateful comment against me
    You are my enemy… an enemy is not sorry for what happened to me…
    credit for my parents??? hey open your eyes… am not eher for ur credit… you yourself have no credit, so how can u give me credit????
    What u know about my parents??? why u insult them ?????
    How could you???
    Dont u see they are not any more on planet earth… dont u see they don’t care about u enemies????
    Even u have stoneheart u should fell something… thats something is… be respectful when u see a person is crying on a grave.
    Dont u have any moral???
    Have u never heard about this word MORAL????
    ……..

    rhetoric???? No NO thats not a rhetoric but fact
    Soon Finland will cry because what we are doing will back on us
    Breivik is you… u got it… its u .
    Why you support racist law???
    Now u have no word … and what is racist mean to you????
    You don’t believe Finnish law has many many racist sides and parts and words and people inside itself… u think is perfect… this shows your pride and narcissistic, and that’s kind of racist…

    YES I AM TELLING THIS WITH LOUD VOICE
    THEY ARE CHILDREN OF SATAN
    U want prove that they are holy and some kind of angels???

    They are children of satan
    they are killing me day by day and are hide like you

    Woe on you woe on you

  11. Brave

    HUH HUH,
    Ohduke,
    Finns don’t look kindly upon people who lie or keep exaggerating – case in point being J. Bäckman who was caught red-handed from lying to the media which effectively terminated all credibility he might once have had in Finland.
    …..
    U think foreigners come here for Finns look kindly upon them????
    Who do you think u r???
    seriously ???
    And what u mean by this words??? do you want tell Finns are angelic people and they dont know whats lie??? They don’t lie at all and are some specially humans???
    Ur in dream
    Finns are exactly human beings like all people in this world… like me and you… no/one is perfect except GOD.
    The mercy of GOD is in my life… i go forward and forward .. because GOD has my back…
    Now why are u jealous at me???
    I have all i want… my all is GOD… why u afraid when i telling Finland will cry soon???
    If you done nothing wrong then why u shaking ???
    I have all credit i need and want u dont be worry for me… just care about yourself and wooden minds.
    Now remember that
    Don’t never ever open ur mouth against me, i am standing for my rights in a very difficult life that i have and have power in me…
    Don’t spray your hate around me because it will back on u and ur heart so strongly
    Dont tell me shut up… don’t call me ur favorite names… don’t treat me with your private gun… don’t judge my parents who are not aware about them and their life… don’t judge me
    I DONT afraid of racists and racist law
    I dont afraid of ur words
    I dont afraid
    I DO NOT AFRAID
    I dont afraid of u i been in ur jail, i tasted rape of ur law
    I DONT AFRAID>>>> I TASTED VERY WELL UR LAW>>> FINNISH LAW RAPED ME

    Soon Finland will shake

  12. ohdake

    I asked you a direct question. What exactly is racist in the law? You seem to be unable to answer this – and none of the several (dozens) of the blogs i read provided any answer for it. So, please, tell me exactly what is so racist in the law? It should be straightforward thing for you to say since you have repeatedly stated so. That the law did not work like you wanted it to work does not make it racist, it does not even make it biased. If you make such a claim you actually need to show it to be racist/biased in order to have people actually believing what you are typing. Otherwise it is just a bit more of hot air of which no body cares about.

    As to the rest… I really have no idea what your immature ranting is about.

  13. Brave

    Ohfake and ohdake,
    I answered you directly ur dirty questions… if u have problem to understand my blogs and answers then don’t search support from me.. i told enough so clean your glasses and read them again if u can and u have power to read facts about racist law.
    If i seem to be unable then u r exactly unable to understand my words and blog… now don’t try to insult me,
    Why yourself dont write a blog??? show us ur fake ability.
    and u please tell me what is a law when stands on my rights???
    Thats racist
    Maybe u want tell us that 2 days ago u came from heaven and u dont know anything about Finnish racist law???
    Oh what a holy guy… are u telling us all is perfect in Finland??? Then what??? U been sleep ur whole life in Finland??? or in a jail??? or u r a ghost belong to 17 century????
    Waiting 3 years for a fake court… and watching my case under dust… watching my mama’s dead pics after 7 years being far of home… oh … i know u have not kind of heart that can see what am talking about… u cant see more than ur nose
    Thats racist
    Racist in Finland made me a nightmare u want me explain how???
    My simple enemy wake up if u can
    If u searching such a details then u need send ur spirit in my life to watch all horrible things in me life…
    Why u feel so angry???
    My narrow minded enemy
    Yes i repeat it this word… racist racist racist because i get pain from it… because its in my all days … because its alive and hurting me.
    ..
    Oh as to the rest???
    U really have idea u just cant answer, pity pity
    U really have idea thats why u are feeling angry and u r here… otherwise why u talking to me????
    Oh again ur private gun huh
    okay
    tell me what your immature ranting is about??? U made all dead people laughing at u in this cemetery…
    are u a 2 years old in first century???

    Don’t think that am here for u telling me whatever u wish… and making me do whatever u want…
    Ur face means hate
    Here is not ur court and u r not master of universe….

  14. Brave

    ohdake,
    Otherwise it is just a bit more of hot air of which no body cares about.

    Hot air is good for your icy flat nose… enjoy it
    And me too, i don’t care about your nobody…
    Ur law works for you and your nobody not for me
    Ur law eat my rights and drinks my blood … so it should answer to GOD, because as i told you are not master of universe.

  15. ohdake

    Just because a law did not follow what you perceived to be your right does not make a law racist. Long processing times are not in any way racist either, that is more of a result of both clogged court system and extensive bureaucracy. If something causes hurt to you that does not make it racist either. Just because the world does not turn according to your whims does not make the world racist and just because you claim that something would have been racist does not miraculously turn it ‘racist’.

    And surprisingly i do have fairly good idea of being angry to the authorities. That does not mean i would go rampaging or ranting about it. That being said no one denies you the right to mourn the loss of your parents – it is part where you blame & insult just about anything and any one that hindered or opposed you which is abrasive & immature.

    • Brave

      Just because u r a lover of Finnish law does not make it a normal law but it is a racist law and many things happened to me in my this 6 years that am living in Finland.
      Not only law but there were and are racists people in my life…
      Not only court but other organizations too.

      something causes hurt to you??? not something but many many things… and in 6 years
      …..
      Just because the world does not turn … huh… i am not talking about the world but Finland and racist people in here and racist law in here…
      ….
      you claim that something would have been racist does not miraculously turn it ‘racist’.
      U are not aware about my hard stuff experiences in finland so u cant claim that am liar and yourself is right… it is exactly me who can claim all happened to me was racist…
      U Don’t know even what am talking about… u just try to clean a racist mark that Finland has on forehead…
      Even many many Finns( for sure more than %99 ) know that Finland has a strong racist in itself and then u want show yourself super man and claim that my pains and suffers are not true.
      U can make millions comments and repeat over and over that there is no racist in Finland… can it help anything???
      You forget that it is not only me who claim this go and search for this matter, at least u can search for this on google… cant u???
      Oh

      Abrasive & immature???
      Being polite does not make you and your authorities perfect and being angry does not make me immature…
      Do u know whats abrasive????
      I tell u
      Abrasive is …
      I am suffering, so strongly suffering and even don’t have time to mourn … i had not enough time to mourning for my Mama and suddenly i got another death news on my poor mobile… i have no/one to hug me here and telling me only one peaceful word… i dont know how can i accept this two graves that came in my life because i did not see my parents for a long time… i have many problems here and day by day should trying and trying …all my problems came from racist system and persons… and
      u
      came here
      and telling me
      hey ur liar… ur words on net does not make my dear law racist…. u could not have ur wishes and now ur angry…
      Its Abrasive… u got it???
      Some one made ur life a tragedy and u r crying infront of a guy
      and then this guy don’t know anything about u
      and asking u why are u crying
      u telling this and that
      and he claims that u r liar because he cant taste ur pains… u like it ohdake???
      are u will tell this guy thanks and are u will hug him and are u will feel happy???
      Ohdake u r in a different world… u have no problems in ur life, ur dears are around u, u r at home, u dont need struggle for Ur rights, u dont know whats the mean of losing a right??? U don’t know
      all am telling are strange for u
      whats ur job??? GOD knows… but how and why u trying so hard to support a negative matter that is so clear in this social.
      We can not change the facts in our world
      I can not tell you are a bird… can i??? U r a human..
      You cant fight with yourself can you??? i mean you know the fcat… you know it in the middle of your heart
      because ur heart does not make joke with you
      ……..
      U think we foreigners are one and all same same??? thats wrong…
      We are foreigner but we are all different… different people with different characters
      and being a foreigner is not a crime… u yourself are a foreigner if u go my country or other country
      My sin is that am a foreigner in Finland… and all attacks i got in here was
      because no/one had an open eyes to see we foreigners are different
      I do not want punish… i want peace… how long shall I run after peace in this country…
      I am not a robot and i have not ironic shoes
      I need comfort and PEACE
      Hopefully u got my message.

  16. Mark

    Ohdake

    Your response is as shallow as it is immature – ironic therefore that your first and strongest stick to beat Dana with on the very blog that announces her father’s death is that she is immature.

    As to your question about the racism of the law in relation to family reunion. The right to family is long recognised as a basic right. Children should be entitled to live in the same country as their parents and parents should be entitled to live in the same country as their children. This closest form of family is likewise the strongest, and probably the one that would be least subject to controversy. If you accept a child into your country, you should therefore accept in principle that you are accepting the child’s parents, and also the child’s siblings, as also children of the same parents. In other words, the ‘right to family’ should immediately protect the unity of the immediate family – parents and their children. The importance of this to social cohesion should really not be subject to question. It is a simple and very easily understood right.

    However, while this unity of the immediate family is well recognised, the reality of trying to realise this right in the different EU countries in somewhat lamentable. Long delays in applications are a reflection of a cynical ‘support’ of this right to family. “Yes, we accept the right to family, but we will only put two people from our government administration to handle thousands of applications.” Not only that, but other obstacles in terms of documentation and ‘administration fees’ can likewise be used to delay, deter and derail the proper realisation of the right to family (i.e. family reunification).

    The issue of racism is, typically, a delicate one. Racism can operate in such a way that it is a well known fact that family reunification for refugees coming from more developed countries are likely to be able to afford the various fees and have the resources to cope with the administrative obstacles (things like travelling to a capital city, sometimes even in a different country! I.e. Kenya or Ethiopia in relation to Somali refugees). In other words, refugees from Africa, being the world’s poorest continent, are disproportionately affected by such ‘obstacles’ placed in the way of family reunification. Ironic therefore that the effects of previous racism can be used surreptitiously to reinforce further racism today.

    The question of racism is not always today about race. It relates to ethnicity, religion and in the broadest sense ‘discrimination against those who are significantly different’. This is a given – there shouldn’t be any argument over this.

    The issue then is how particular laws affect particular groups disproportionately, which they often do. The kinds of ‘bureaucracy laden’ laws that typically relate to the rights of foreigners in Finland and family reunification therefore typically negatively affect poorer and more ‘insecure’ international citizens than those from more stable countries. Ironic isn’t it, that those that need the help the most are those that are worst affected. This is typical of a ‘racist’ policy. And while we can blame it on the ‘bureaucracy’, then all the natives will be happy to say “well, we all know how crap the bureaucracy is, stop your belly-aching”.

    That’s how I see it.

    The simple solution is that when you accept a refugee, you in principle accept also the whole family. Either you support the ‘right to family’ or you don’t. All this bureaucratic hoops that people have to jump through is an extremely cynical way of ‘managing’ immigration in such a way that negatively impacts on the individuals affected, and ultimately on the host society as well. A person who gains refugee status and in turn finds their whole ‘immediate’ family is able to relocate is more likely to have some basic stability in their new home. It’s not an imperative, but it’s clearly an advantage.

    The difficulty with this kind of policy is that in principle, the ‘entire’ family could migrate, if it were assumed that the brother of the father or mother was also accepted, and then their children, and then their wife’s family and so on. However, you could limit this to a ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ immigrant, in the sense that the right to ‘immediate family’ applies to the family of that person who was originally granted asylum, and does not extend to the ‘secondary’ individuals who migrate as a result of the first.

    That’s my view on this and on the relationship to racism.

    Now if you had any maturity at all, you would not have stuck the knife in on Dana on a thread that announces the death of her father. No excuses. None. If you are that keen to debate with her, there are plenty of other threads to debate with her. She is a regular blogger on MT.

    You think that your ‘clarity’ in asking the questions gives you a position of strength. Your weakness though is revealed in making absolutely no attempt yourself to answer your own question. As ever with trolls. Lazy and morally bankrupt individuals that they are.

  17. Brave

    And you yossie,
    don’t forget that i tasted ur whip very well, i have pain and u made my wound more deeper… Please do ur job… bravo… make it deep an deeper i used to carry wounds on my heart …
    U abused me very well in the middle of my parents graves… thank u so much
    How could u but… but how could u ???
    It was like u knew my parents and u felt so happy because they both gone yes???
    Now u have more space in ur area and Finland???
    I am glad that they never came here to suffer like me from people like you, truly they won heaven tickets and wont suffer in Finalnd.
    MY GOD
    Now i need put medicine on new wounds
    Yossie how could you???
    This grave was a huge opportunity for u and u done ur best…
    Even a small bird could respect me when am crying and spraying my graves with my tears…
    I just
    want inform you Yossie that
    I am not
    Stupid
    I felt very well ur whip on me…
    Ur whip was wet wet
    oh
    what a bad pain i have …
    Sigh sigh
    what a perfect whip u have Yossie… may i ask from where an dhow much u bought it???
    U bought it from who???
    huuuuuh

  18. ohdake

    What exactly was there shallow and immature in the question, after all Dana/Brave first claimed that law would have been racist?

    – ‘Your weakness though is revealed in making absolutely no attempt yourself to answer your own question’

    So if you make a supposition without any basis and i ask you as on what grounds did you make such a supposition – then in your world I’m first supposed to somehow know what you thought of using for backing the supposition so that i can answer the question? Since it is not possible to do so without first knowing what were the grounds for the supposition. I’m very sorry but I’m not telepathic or clairvoyant either of which does seems be rather fundamental requirement to be able to fulfill that requirement of yours.

    And like you stated there are no clear solutions to the family matter. Every solution brings different set of problems with it like you stated. Finnish stance is no different from any other in that respect. Also after reading FIS page on the topic it appears that parents of an adult are not family members (they exceedingly rarely are in Finland) under the law in this respect and it applies to Finns and non-Finns alike in exact same manner, can’t see any racism there either.

    As far as I’m concerned or aware there is nothing racist in the law. I’m not saying law might not be needlessly harsh or hard, and that it might feel at times like banging against a stone wall when trying to get things done. But racist, no, not in any definable way. After all it is the same for all, and as per blind impartial justice that is how it should be. If it were to give exemptions to – by some definition – more needy, wouldn’t the law then be unjust for the rest of the people?

    As to knowing foreigners, i happen know quite a few. I regularly work with several Chinese people (who live in Finland) and worked for quite a while with an Egyptian (who also lives in Finland). And i have several Finnish Kale friends (Finnish Roma). So i certainly am well aware of people from different countries and from different cultures.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      So if you make a supposition without any basis and i ask you as on what grounds did you make such a supposition – then in your world I’m first supposed to somehow know what you thought of using for backing the supposition so that i can answer the question?

      Actually the real world works more alone the lines that people work to try to understand what another person is saying and what the truth is behind their statement. It comes under the general rubric of Relevance Theory, and the notion that there is common ground. What you do is completely undermine the notion of a common ground.

      For example, the issue of racism is not a supposition, by any stretch of the imagination. It’s a reality. Treating it like it was a ‘supposition’ marks a childish intellectual game. Racism is something that has negatively affected millions of people. You know – death, persecution, and misery. So, even treating it like it was a ‘supposition’ is itself a massive failure of conscience.

      Imagine this, Ohdake, you went to the doctor with what could be interpreted as symptoms of cancer, but your doctor played dumb as if it couldn’t possibly be cancer. He demanded that you show evidence of cancer, even though the patient is in no position to provide evidence, but rather merely testimony about the ‘symptoms’. On the contrary, if the patient reports cancer-like symptoms, then the doctor, knowing that cancer is a serious illness, should investigate the body, and not engage in an attempt to discredit the patient’s report of the symptoms. With serious social ills, we should always exercise caution and listen to all testimony.

      Why do you assume it is a ‘supposition without any basis‘? It seems to me that you bring far too many assumptions to this question. Gosh, the irony of this situation really boggles my mind sometimes.

      Just try to grasp the irony of this situation for a moment. Many ‘refugees’ are being pushed into the field of practical nursing. It serves Finland well, and there really isn’t much time for much chit chat in the job anyhow, so language skills are not the most important thing (Finns think like this). But the end result is that a refugee, especially female refugees like Dana, will often find themselves looking after the older Finns, the parents of just those Finns that are so negative to the whole notion of these refugees having the right to family reunification, i.e. having their own parents join them in their country of sanctuary. Forget the bureaucratic stuff for a minute – just imagine how that actually feels; a person spends the best hours of their waking life looking after the elderly parents of just those people who would deny that person the right to see their own parents come to Finland. Does that seem ‘equal’ to you? Native Finns, by definition, have their parents living typically in Finland (accepting that Finns migrate also). A refugee has to fight for the same right, the same very very very very basic social support and network. Of course, to some people, it’s not important – they’ve flown the nest and are happy to make a life of their own. To others, it’s different. Parents represent the foundation of their life – and the situation is further complicated if the refugee fears for the safety of their parents, given their own flight from the country.

      I think it is fair of you to ask why Dana thinks the Finnish system has been racist in regard to her family reunification application. But in hearing her response you should also understand that ‘racism’ for immigrants is felt in very visceral ways. When seeming ordinary things like the unity of family becomes an issue of bureaucracy tied up in the courts and system for YEARS, then the system, which wouldn’t dream of devaluing the notion of ‘family’ within the national context, yet seems quite happy to do exactly that when it comes to the issue of ‘foreigners’, comes across as racist (anti-foreigner). Perhaps you should understand this word in its broadest sense of meaning ‘discrimination against the Other’, rather then getting bogged down in issues of looking for the issue of ‘race’. Indeed, most experts who work in this field have a fairly broad and nuanced understanding of ‘racism’.

      Finnish stance is no different from any other in that respect.

      That’s a broad conclusion that you seem to have arrived at with no actual experience of the system in action.

      Also after reading FIS page on the topic it appears that parents of an adult are not family members

      Which merely illustrates how contrived the ‘family reunification’ policy has become. The idea that parents would not be family members is an insult to human intelligence. I gave my understanding of the issue, but I was not claiming that this is the interpretation taken by European governments. On the contrary, the contradictions in family policy are painful to anyone who first accepts the basic concept of the ‘right to family’! Governments have bent over backwards to back track on this fundamental premise of human rights.

      and it applies to Finns and non-Finns alike in exact same manner, can’t see any racism there either.

      – such is the odiousness of the law. How can it apply ‘alike’ when the plain reality is that most ‘Finns’ do not have to fight for the right of their parents to live in the same country as themselves? Of course this ‘law’, whether applying ‘equally’ or not, affects immigrants quite differently to native Finns and quite obviously negatively, while in the same breath it BARELY affects Finns at all!!!! How can you not see the ridiculousness of claiming this as some kind of equality? Your seeking for the notion of ‘equality’ in this situation appears horribly contrived. It’s ‘horrible’ because in the process, you blind yourself to the reality of what it means to be legally ‘separated’ from your parents!

      As far as I’m concerned or aware there is nothing racist in the law.

      You are not even beginning to open your eyes to the possibilities of racism. I’m making no final judgement in regard to Dana’s circumstances. At the very least she has suffered because the system is under-resourced. For a country that puts the family in No.1 position again and again, it makes no sense that immigrants would have to suffer the consequences of under-resourcing of such a fundamental right relating to family unity. Imagine for example if the Kela office for sorting out child dependence only had a handful of staff, and it took literally YEARS to sort out agreements for maintenance of children. Or in the matter of child-birth that newborns could not be united with their parents after birth for a period of YEARS because the process to establish them as a legal entity with the right to exist in Finland required several YEARS to fulfil.

      Of course, Finland does not tolerate such unnecessary under-resourcing of very basic bureaucratic processes relating to a child and its parents, even though the ‘child’ is in exactly the same way a ‘new entity’ in regard to the state, and its relationship to the existing entity (the parent) remains likewise straightforward a linkage by immediate birth. So why seek to complicate matters so much when it comes to immigrants and their rights to family reunification? To an outsider, such intransigence appears utterly prejudiced, whatever name you care to give to it.

      As to knowing foreigners, i happen know quite a few. I regularly work with several Chinese people (who live in Finland) and worked for quite a while with an Egyptian (who also lives in Finland). And i have several Finnish Kale friends (Finnish Roma).

      Yawn. Well, you cannot possibly be a racist then!!!!

      So, why did you not address with even a single sentence the actual answer to the question you posed about how the system could be racist? I gave you several examples of ways in which the system could operate negatively against immigrants and you didn’t address a single one! I thought you were interested in getting an answer! Seems you were more interested in telling the world that the Finnish law cannot possibly be racist!

  19. ohdake

    I never said racism would be a supposition. What i said was that the claim that the law would have been racist is a supposition. Which it is until it can be proven. And with “supposition without any basis” i only referred to the point that until something is actually shown to be racism it should not be assumed to be racism. With such assumption so widely used by bloggers in MT you are only showing your own prejudice against Finns. Which also could be understood to be racism in itself using the same broad definition of the term you did.

    – “Does that seem ‘equal’ to you?”
    It is according to the law. Which summarizes it quite well. It may feel unfair to some but the rights are in that respect equal for the Finns and non-Finns alike.

    – “But in hearing her response you should also understand that ‘racism’ for immigrants is felt in very visceral ways.”
    As has been shown immigrants also deduce several things as racism which are not actually racist. You can not start yelling ‘ITS RACISM’ every time something happens that offends the feelings of immigrants unless you can actually show that it was racism. Just because it felt to a person as racism does not mean that it would have been. Don’t get me wrong like you did earlier, i do not mean that Dana would not have been offended or felt that the decision was unjust. It is just that those things have very little to do with actual racism.

    -“The idea that parents would not be family members is an insult to human intelligence”
    This is actually matter of local culture. In modern Finnish culture & society young people tend to be independent already at relatively young age. Average ages for ‘leaving the nest’ being 22 for women and 23 for men (Youth in Europe, a statistical portrait, 2009 edition). So on average the traditional family unit is no longer valid for adults above the age of 21. Why shouldn’t the laws reflect the local culture then? That is not exactly racist either.

    – “So why seek to complicate matters so much when it comes to immigrants and their rights to family reunification?”
    From what can be seen from the law it is no more complicated than family procedures. And there is a great difference when dealing with under aged persons and with actual adults who according to the their age should be able to act as independent persons (or as family units of their own as you will). I really can’t see what you are after by dragging the children into a discussion which had nothing to do with them.

    – “Yawn. Well, you cannot possibly be a racist then!!!!”
    I never said that i would be or that i would not be. However it was claimed that i would not have any knowledge of the habits of ‘foreigners’ which seemed to be something that needed to be corrected.

    You did show how the system might be hard for the immigrants, not that the system would have been racist. Just because something hinders the immigrants it is not racist. And i did answer to some of your ‘examples’. And i did ask one more question, if the law handled the people differently – like you seem to be demanding for it to do – wouldn’t the law then be – by definition – unjust?

    You ought to keep in mind the story of the boy of cried wolf. If you keep painting matters which are not clearly racist as racist your are only devaluing the term racist/racism – as well as doing a rather grave disservice to people genuinely suffering from it.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      Which it is until it can be proven.

      Well, you can just go ahead and dismiss all internet claims of racism then, because it’s highly unlikely that you will find anything approaching ‘proof’.

      I never said racism would be a supposition.

      You treated Dana’s claims of racism as supposition. The claims she makes relates to the law and to the behaviour of individuals. Both claims should be taken seriously. Treating them as ‘suppositions’ until you get ‘proof’ without giving any indication of what would constitute proof or even beginning to show even a basic understanding of how racism operates either in institutions (i.e. the law) or in individual behaviour (assuming Dana to be a threat and therefore calling the police) basically allows you to treat Dana as a paranoid and deluded individual, placing all the emphasis and glare of scrutiny upon her, and none on the claims she made or the operation of the system. Information about the possible failings of that system have been explored in detail already on this blog.

      It may feel unfair to some but the rights are in that respect equal for the Finns and non-Finns alike.

      A law that appears to apply equally to all citizens but which discriminates against immigrants by nature of IGNORING their own unique circumstances in not EQUALITY by any stretch.

      As has been shown immigrants also deduce several things as racism which are not actually racist.

      Once again, you merely demonstrate ONLY your ability to individualise the problems of racism and show absolutely no ability whatsoever to analyse even the possibilities of institutional racism. You are not someone that can be taken seriously.

      You can not start yelling ‘ITS RACISM’ every time something happens that offends the feelings of immigrants unless you can actually show that it was racism.

      Your formulation of this situation is very telling. “Yelling”, “every time”, “offends the feelings of immigrants”. You choose words that deliberately belittle and undermine the dignity and experiences of immigrants. And I’m supposed to believe that you take racism seriously? You are a joke!

      I have no idea how much of Dana’s situation you actually understand. Perhaps you have or have not read through her previous posts to understand what has happened to her. From my perspective, as an editor on Migrant Tales, Dana’s story is a very tragic story of someone who went to the Social Office to attend a prearranged appointment and was desperately seeking help; she was refused help (in relation to reunification, I think) and when she protested by taking up a seat in the waiting room in a peaceful manner, the social office escalated the problem by calling the police.

      The ‘racism’ element is not going to be visible as a matter of proof. Proof is not required in the sense of showing that staff mentioned her ethnicity. All that is required is to demonstrate according to probabilities that her treatment and outcome would have been different if she was a native, and that the actions of the staff were in some way instrumental in that different outcome.

      This constitutes racism just as much as an out and out statement of hatred. The outcome, after all, is typically the same – an inferior level of service, disrespect, and undermining of the dignity and basic rights of individuals who are not native born. But you will find no ‘proof’ about this form of racism. Of course, some ‘racism’ is ignorance. Some staff simply do not understand or have had insufficient training in how to properly ensure that the rights of migrants are fully respected, and what that means in terms of adapting their services to migrants.

      Perhaps you think you are being thorough, rational and scientific by asking for proof. Either way, you are not in touch with the real world situation and the real ambiguities and difficulties associated with tackling racism. For example, the question that has to be asked in Dana’s case is whether the threshold for escalating the situation by calling the police was lower because Dana was a foreigner. There is no definitive answer to that, but we should take the issue very seriously. That is the very least.

      The other issue is whether or not it is right that an individual who goes to the social office for help ends up with a criminal record. Would this have been more or less likely if she had been a Finn? You might argue that Finns understand the system, and therefore would have known how to react in the situation so as to avoid that situation. But assuming that immigrants should have this same knowledge while making absolutely no allowances for the fact that they probably don’t have this knowledge, and knowing how serious the consequences can be when one doesn’t have this knowledge, is itself pretty racist in my book. It is like penalising a child for not being able to spell, knowing that they had not had any training and also that they wouldn’t know what the penalty for not being able to spell were.

      It is just that those things have very little to do with actual racism.

      Once again, you only seem to want to show me your ignorance. For example, reducing these situations merely to the ‘feelings’ of immigrants while making NO EFFORT whatsoever to tackle the typical or potential institutional racism is not demonstrating a knowledge of racism or discrimination and how it operates or how it can be tackled. And yet, you still feel qualified and confident to tell me that it has nothing to do with ‘real’ racism, even though you have not articulated a single sentence on what that ‘real’ racism actually is.

      You’ve only individualised the problem and shown me why your default position is sceptical, dismissive of the rights of immigrants, dismissive of their dignity and humanity and why you general don’t take any claims to racism seriously.

      Why shouldn’t the laws reflect the local culture then?

      This is your assumption, and likely a false one. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that reunification laws reflect a ‘culture’ relating to when kids leave home in Finland. Seriously, I doubt these two matters have ever been mentioned in the same sentence in regard to family reunification policy. Correct me if I’m wrong.

      That is not exactly racist either.

      You seem obsessed with using every and any argument to try and explain why this situation cannot be racist. Obsessed! Why is that?

      Once again, you have not dealt with the core issues that I mentioned. This was the summary of a 2004 EU parliament report on the issue of family reunion. Pay attention:

      The right of all individuals to respect for their family life is a fundamental right guaranteed under international instruments, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights. Family reunion corresponds to the situation where a family comes to join one of its members. This right may be exercised by migrants lawfully resident in a member state and by persons having obtained refugee status or complementary or subsidiary protection.

      The Parliamentary Assembly considers that family reunion strengthens the policy of integration into the host society and is in the interests of social cohesion. Some Council of Europe member states tend to impose restrictive conditions on the exercise of this right. In this respect, the Assembly regrets that the recent European Union Directive on the right to family reunification fails to propose a common definition of the family unit, to recognise this right for persons granted subsidiary protection or to lay down harmonised provisions with regard to conditions, procedures and timeframes for granting resident status and associated rights.

      Note. They mention timeframes, definitions for family unit, and the right to the family unit. These are the matters that I already brought to your attention and which you chose to ignore. I’m assuming therefore that you haven’t a clue what you are talking about when it comes to family reunification and that your single motive in replying to Dana is to manoeuvre any way you can to dismiss any notion of racism. The issue goes beyond racism in that respecting the rights of all European citizens equally should be a given. Anything less is discrimination.

      You did show how the system might be hard for the immigrants, not that the system would have been racist.

      You clearly were not paying attention. A system that systematically discriminates specifically against people from Africa can be interpreted to be a ‘racist’ system. It matters not that the discrimination functions through economic restrictions or that no-one has mentioned race at all in the drafting or enactment of these practices. The issue is that society has a duty of care to protect against that kind of discrimination, and when that discrimination is allowed to stand, not properly addressed, dismissed or ignored, then we can assume that the only reason that would seem to justify that level of procrastination is an institutionalised and systematic dislike of particular ethnicities.

      And i did ask one more question, if the law handled the people differently – like you seem to be demanding for it to do – wouldn’t the law then be – by definition – unjust?

      No, it would not be unjust. Two concepts operate in public policy, equality – where everyone is treated equally under the assumption that everyone has a similar need, and equity, where people are treated differently in the sense that each is treated according to their need. We have long long long passed the days where people thought equality was achieved only through EQUAL treatment, and it is completely understood that people in vulnerable situations need to be treated according to need. Therefore, ignoring the specific and unique needs of immigrants on the basis that immigrants should be treated exactly like natives is a form of discrimination. It’s a bit like treating someone who has cancer as if they had heart disease on the basis that the majority of patients suffer heart disease rather than cancer.

      You ought to keep in mind the story of the boy of cried wolf.

      And you ought to keep in mind the stigmatisation of the Nazis of vulnerable sections of society purely for political gain. Let’s see now, which ‘story’ has more relevance to modern politics and society?

  20. Brave

    Yossie,
    What the hell are you on about?

    No hell… all i have is paradise.. thanks GOD
    Go and read ur comment on me on this blog…
    Look how you treated a person is crying on her father’s grave…

  21. Brave

    When my parents needed me and my help… i was doing my best to ur old parents in hospital and elderly house
    When my Mama was on bed in hospital i was helping ur parents with my whole love… spraying love here and there for them

    Hey Finns,

    Don’t tell me ur parents are not old
    Don’t tell me those people were not ur parents
    They all were Finnish old people and i treated them like they are my parents i gave my love to them
    But what about you…??????????????????????????
    ??????????????????????????????????????????????
    How you treated my parents???
    Answer to yours
    I dont need ur answer
    Now
    My parents are not in this world and am not happy any more

    My back is broken and my world is wondering about justice
    You done a very harsh work on my life, very fantastic
    Now
    My words make me cry and my pen make me to feel die
    My Mama face won’t leave me… NOOOOO
    My father words won’t let me alone
    Now my Mama pic on refrigerator watching me with a pair balck sad eyes
    and i can’t watch it without big tears from my worry eyes
    Now life has no mean for me i lost myself in a cruel/land
    and watching people with their family make me feel in a deep of sand
    My face is sad sad sad oh
    I can not change it.. Mirror let me go
    Now my heart can’t sing me loud
    Now my mouth can’t smile on the road
    sigh
    Now i can see faces under masks Because Life gave me hard lessons of darks
    Now there’s me and only me, Me is not alone but is friend with a big tree
    Big tree tries to make me talk
    My mouth is shock i cant even take a walk
    Now my feets cant feel my weight any more
    I am like a shadow, my life is full of sore
    U ignored me in everywhere
    And i was trying to be ur friend yes dear
    Now don’t get me wrong that am here for you pity
    But wow look at yourself, U ignored me so perfectly
    There is no me in ur world be happy
    I am building my world with only me plus me
    Now don’t think that you done your best, noooo
    I am still alive,you lost, woe on you woe

  22. Brave

    Ohdake,
    Tell me what is racist???
    You know it better than me yes??? Okay now prove it???
    What is real racist??? What is not real racist???

    I tell you
    I can choose my friends… they can have different colour or race,or only one race, or only from my own country, or only white people, yellow people… if i don’t choose someone between people around me it does not make me racist… because this is my right to choose for me even i can choose only one person or nothing at all because maybe i want be in my world??? Yes??? you agree??
    For me i cant be friend with impolite ones… or those spend their time in clubs and drink alcohol ( pay attention i have no religion but strongly believe in GOD )
    I don’t drink alcohol because i care about my body and mind and want be health, thats my family culture…
    I can not be friend with a person that we both have nothing to talk about… i am energetic person i want talk about different things if a person is quiet so sure we cant be good friends… at least we should understand our worlds a bit… i don’t like talk about boyfriend and girl friend stuffs these things are not worthy for me and my life,or i don’t like give my phone number and address to who ask me this??? i never ask for a phone number from people…I don’t like noisy parties… i don’t like music,i like writing, i don’t like go to church and mosque, i don’t want speak about religion and who is better… and who is right… no, my idea people are free so me is free… i even prefer to be alone with my papers for hours in a day…
    I can choose… we can… it does not make us racist
    If 2 foreigners speak in their mother language to each other , it does not make them racist when they are close to me… but if they talk loud loud ( Its always in the bus and trains ) then again its not racist but very wild and impolite from them… because bus is a public place not a private for them to come and make nose with mobiles and else, they should not put their feets on ur right and make a noisy time for u…
    So we can choose our chairs in the bus,train and else… it does not make us racist, we can eat what ever food we want, if i dont eat r food it does not make me racist
    We can talk with who ever we want,
    We can choose our markets and shops
    Our dresses and cloths
    ( many people choice is not their real choice but their real benefits… however i don’t search for a benefit but for my spirit i can work on my benefits with my mind and hard works )
    It means
    I am not waiting for a neighbour to come and invite me to its house… no… she, he is free to choose and i respect this choice,..
    BUT BUT BUT
    What about
    Law when its standing against my rights???
    U don’t call it racist because ur doing ur best fanatical about Finnish law…i call it racist because it makes wound in my spirit… and its hurting my body so strongly too.
    …..
    U understand now??? my rights… if u stand on my right means u hate me… means u cant see that am a human like yours.
    You can not tell, this is our law no more no less
    If u say so
    again means ur rights not important because this is what Finnish law say….
    It is an answer every body telling me here…
    Its racist
    Because why my family were not important and why every one try to washing my brain and teaching me that here is Finland in Finland law works like this???
    So this law is racist because push me out of my rights…
    Again people
    Every one treating me like i am not a human beings but a ghost and a ghost so she does not need her family
    Now all is over for me i lost my darling parents

    But its not over with those cruels who made a grave for my case and left it under dust in court and immigration service… its not over i am sure… i don’t know them but GOD knows everything very well…..
    ……..
    When Finnish law keep me in jail and make me a criminal case because want close my mouth …its racist…
    When my own social workers make plan and hunting me in the middle of day for police …its racist
    ………
    When school managers fire me from school because foreigners students have complain about me… because i want live in my own world…its racist… those African,Russian,Guatemala, Bosnia, and others in class room where racist yes that’s true… they bullying me and i could not defend me because law was against me… i did not want put me in a group… i want be free
    ….
    When TE/toimisto punishing me so perfectly its racist
    ……………….
    When parliament take my all papers and quickly send back all to me because i was complaining about racist police…its racist…it shows they care about themselves not me a foreigner…

    When court take my complain and after a year make a court against me not that polices …its racist…..
    ……….
    Many example i have….
    >>>>
    So i am very serious but u and ur law and people like u dont take me seriously.
    ………..
    People do racist and yet they think its normal and not racist… when u dont let em to talk with u, when u ignoring me every single day, when u dont respect me even my mama passed away…then whats that name??? not racist???

    Do u know even one single word from my mother language???
    But i spent my all minutes on books, and ur mother language Finnish… not one year and 2 and 3
    now its 6 years am living here
    And yet i have no right in this country
    even i took my citizenship with a very hard work on it…
    But what benefit has for me… nothing… If i could not speak Finnish and had not my citizenship… then everything and everyone attacking me that… why i don’t speak Finnish, why i don’t have my finnish citizenship, why i don’t respect Finnish culture and language … why, and many whys???? and now i done all and presented you Finns my golden times but instead
    U made for me two graves… thank you
    No/one was agree about my parents… no/one
    IF u telling me again… we don’t care about u… u r second citizen in Finland
    I telling you….
    Well myself don’t care too … i am a Persian….
    Now Ohdake
    tell me what experience do u have about real original firstclass racist???

    • ohdake

      Tell me what is racist???
      You know it better than me yes??? Okay now prove it???
      What is real racist??? What is not real racist???

      In short? Discrimination (or even violence) against ethnic group.

      If we look at your examples then it is very doubtful that all of those case due to racism. To be honest of the grievances you listed only the school issues seems to be a case of racism and even that with a caveat that the complaints against you were racially or ethnically motivated. That is to say discriminated against you. Of the rest it is simply impossible to say that they would have been racism using the information you provided.

      Also just because your rights under the law are not exactly those you would want them to be does not make the law racist. You can even disagree with the law as long as you don’t disobey it.

      People do racist and yet they think its normal and not racist… when u dont let em to talk with u, when u ignoring me every single day, when u dont respect me even my mama passed away…then whats that name??? not racist???

      I never discuss with anything with people i do not know. I leave people alone and try to ignore them to the best my abilities. I do that because of the express reason that i respect them and their privacy. I consider it extremely rude to intervene with some one’s privacy so i try to avoid doing that. But if you genuinely need help, being injured or by being lost, and ask for it i would stop to help in that instant.

      What i do not respect are people who are rampaging or ranting about something. Be they priests, politicians, immigrants or what ever.

      IF u telling me again… we don’t care about u…

      I never said that. You have the rights (and responsibilities) as other people in Finland have them. But not beyond them.

      Original ‘firstclass’ racism? How about bus drivers who refuse to take people to their bus due to ethnicity. Seen that happen couple of times – far less common these days though. Youth gangs formed along ethnic boundaries beating each other?

  23. ohdake

    You treated Dana’s claims of racism as supposition. The claims she makes relates to the law and to the behaviour of individuals. Both claims should be taken seriously.

    Sure, however there was no indication that either law or the persons would have discriminated against her. Just because you have a personal opinion that something would have been racist does not mean that it would actually be so.

    A law that appears to apply equally to all citizens but which discriminates against immigrants by nature of IGNORING their own unique circumstances in not EQUALITY by any stretch.

    A bit wrong there. It is exactly that (equal). Your demand which would essentially be a preferential treatment for immigrants is per definition against equality since it would discriminate against native Finns.

    You are not someone that can be taken seriously.

    You are a joke!

    So in other words if person’s opinion differs from your opinion he can not be be taken seriously and is considered to be a joke. Thank you, I could have hardly asked for a better description of your personal prejudice. Now could we continue this discussion without further immaturity from your part?

    You choose words that deliberately belittle and undermine the dignity and experiences of immigrants. And I’m supposed to believe that you take racism seriously?

    I chose words which describe into what you have turned the matter into. I take racism very seriously however i refuse to paint things that are not racist as racism. Your attitude is exactly what i referred to with the statement regarding the story of the boy who cried wolf. By repeatedly applying the term racism to cases which do not really hold up to the claim you are belittling & devaluing the term. In essence the more you cry of racism in cases where discrimination of immigrants or other races is not clear the less believable any of your claims regarding racism becomes. By doing so you are already in a way acting against the people who genuinely suffer from racism by attributing to the devaluing of the term. Mind you if you can show that ethnic or racial discrimination takes place i have no problems agreeing that it would have been racism – but just because you have an opinion that something would be racism/institutional racism or something else does not turn it into such.

    I have no idea how much of Dana’s situation you actually understand. Perhaps you have or have not read through her previous posts to understand what has happened to her.

    By looking at the law handling family reunification there was nothing the Social Office could have done. So by telling that she ‘was refused help’ you are already introducing a bias to your description. She was further told to leave after she had started protesting. At this point it is no wonder to any one (Finn) that the person who controls the premises would call the police. After all by law there is nothing else they can do. Social offices powers are controlled by the law and they can not go against it either. So in that respect the treatment of the person was similar regardless of his/her ethnicity.

    Eventual outcome would like been less dramatic since Finns generally (unless intoxicated) obey if told to leave the premises. But that has nothing to do with ethnicity. Finns generally hold relatively high respect for the law – so it is actually fairly difficult to perceive a situation where a native Finn would refuse when police told to him/her to vacate the premises. There are actually several different violations of criminal code which if the such a location is not vacated – most likely being ‘haitanteko virkamiehelle’ (since AFAIK Kela personnel are officials even an attempt to hinder them from doing their duties could be perceived to be a criminal offence). Your personal opinion of how justified you felt that action was simply does not matter. Neither do your allegories regarding children and being able to spell have any validity since we were discussing an situation between an adult and a clearly marked (in case of police) official.

    Perhaps you think you are being thorough, rational and scientific by asking for proof.

    Not really, I’m just in my profession required to be thorough, rational and, probably more than anything, scientific.

    This is your assumption, and likely a false one. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that reunification laws reflect a ‘culture’ relating to when kids leave home in Finland. Seriously, I doubt these two matters have ever been mentioned in the same sentence in regard to family reunification policy. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    It is my assumption yes, however as was shown the traditional family unit is dissolved (and new ones are formed) in Finland when youth reach the age of 22/23. So why wouldn’t that be reflected in the Finnish legislation. It is a cultural issue but not a racist issue. Any one who genuinely wants to integrate into the Finnish society should acknowledge that.

    You seem obsessed with using every and any argument to try and explain why this situation cannot be racist. Obsessed! Why is that?

    If everything that affects immigrants (even if those same matters would affect native people) counts as racism then the value of term will be substantially lower than what it should be. IMO racism is a serious matter and it should be kept as such. It should not be a by-word thrown in when immigrant gets offended. It ought to be applied only when it really was a racist offense. Otherwise people simply won’t give a damn if some one is claimed to be racist because the meaning of the term and more importantly the perception of what it entails changes.

    Note. They mention timeframes, definitions for family unit, and the right to the family unit.

    Yet the define or even suggest anything for those. There is no grounds for stating situation would be any different if there would be definition for a family unit since there is no mention of what it would consist of. So your claim of discrimination on that ground is false.

    You clearly were not paying attention. A system that systematically discriminates specifically against people from Africa can be interpreted to be a ‘racist’ system.

    Yes, such a system could be interpreted to be racist, however you have failed to show that there would exists such a system.

    No, it would not be unjust.

    Actually it would. Per definition of justice it should be IMPARTIAL which means that no one before the law should have in any way preferential treatment. This is something that you seem to be unable to grasp. And your medical analogies are badly flawed (as the goals or targets of the treatments were different).

    And you ought to keep in mind the stigmatisation of the Nazis of vulnerable sections of society purely for political gain. Let’s see now, which ‘story’ has more relevance to modern politics and society?

    I wondered how it would take for you to pull the ‘Nazi’ card. Not that I’m surprised given your rhetoric. I didn’t say anything of stigmatization of vulnerable sections of society, all that is your own invention. People are not out there to get you despite of what you seem to believe.

    • Mark

      ohdake

      Sure, however there was no indication that either law or the persons would have discriminated against her.

      Two issues here. Dana’s application for family reunification was in the system for years due to under-resourcing. Her parents were elderly and come precisely within the bracket of individuals the EU recognises as eligible for family reunification. The lack of resourcing of this basic service geared to protecting the rights of legal citizens who are immigrants is precisely the kinds of institutional procrastination associated with a society with high degrees of racism and antagonism towards foreigners. Second, the threshold at which Dana’s case of social desperation was ‘criminalised’ appears to have been exceedingly low, for which both the social office personnel and the police were directly responsible. This is not uncommon with foreigners who are given far less tolerance in a situations that actually require far more tolerance in order to account for a lack of tacit knowledge about how the system works or does not work.

      While there is no definitive answer to either of these questions in regard to the degree that racism is the causal factor in these seeming failings, it is clear that an immigrant is not receiving ‘equal’ service in the sense that their unique circumstances are being missed, under-valued or dismissed. While you might imagine racism to be Nazis marching along the streets demanding blacks ‘go home’, the truth is that racism is far more subtle and pervasive within the processes and procedures of society, fed by negative and dismissive attitudes by the majority population.

      A bit wrong there. It is exactly that (equal). Your demand which would essentially be a preferential treatment for immigrants is per definition against equality since it would discriminate against native Finns.

      Ironic that you make this statement and then wonder why I say you cannot be taken seriously. I suggest you take the matter up with public officials in Finland and educate yourself as to the true nature of the democracy in which you live. Your current conceptions are simplistic at best and dangerously misinformed at worst. A different treatment is not by definition ‘preferential’. But associating ‘different’ treatment based on need geared to towards an ‘equal’ goal with merely ‘preferentialism’, you fail to understand how the issue of services provided on a needs basis actually functions.

      I chose words which describe into what you have turned the matter into.

      No, you choose words that we did not choose. You chose words that were insulting to the dignity of Dana, referring to her concerns about racism as ‘yelling’. Such an attitude is not one we take on Migrant Tales. It seems rather rich that you would accuse us of having turned this matter into such a personal and vilified social problem.

      I take racism very seriously

      I find that extremely hard to believe. Forgive my pessimism, but so far you have only demonstrated an affinity with the arguments regularly used to attack claims of racism and dealing with racism at a societal level. You have shown no actual deep understanding or articulation of racism. Even in your subsequent comment to Dana about racism being a form of discrimination, you provide the definition and then don’t actually follow up on what that actually means in practice. You show only a concern for dismissing the claims to racism. Everything you have written is to this effect. You show no concern for Dana or her experiences. Indeed, you attack her and her credibility on the very blog that announces the death of her father. I would call that callous.

      Your attitude is exactly what i referred to with the statement regarding the story of the boy who cried wolf.

      I’m pretty sure you have no real concept of my ‘attitude’. The fact that you approach the issues of racism from a ‘boy who cried wolf’ perspective and make no effort to actually address the key questions arising from Dana’s experiences illustrates that you are not really engaging with racism, but doing damage-limitation and actually working against the interests of those who are the victims of racism.

      By repeatedly applying the term racism to cases which do not really hold up to the claim you are belittling & devaluing the term.

      You would know all about terms that belittle and devalue. For example, you referred to her experiences as YELLING. Still, there is no definitive answer as to whether the claim to racism holds up. In this situation, various negative conclusions could be drawn about how services in Finland handle immigrants and immigration issues and it might still be difficult to put the causes for that down to racism, even if racism is clearly the most likely cause of such procrastination. The one thing that you or I do not have access to is the visceral experience that Dana has of seeing how people actually look at her, what they say to her, and how this contrasts with her own experiences of being treated with dignity by those who respect/care for her. While racism in this context is subjective, and you could always claim this subjectivity precludes a clear demonstration of proof (how convenient), the outcomes in terms of poor services and treatment remain clearly visible and real.

      In essence the more you cry of racism in cases where discrimination of immigrants or other races is not clear the less believable any of your claims regarding racism becomes.

      Yet the issue of racism is almost never clear cut, especially in today’s world. Your criteria for being ‘clear’ would clearly dismiss a great deal of the concerns and problems of discrimination. That is unsatisfactory and unnecessary. All you are asked to do is just learn a bit more about these things and to treat the people who are affected by them with more respect.

      By doing so you are already in a way acting against the people who genuinely suffer from racism by attributing to the devaluing of the term.

      Well, that’s a strange one. I cannot say that Migrant Tales has ever had a letter or comment from someone who was suffering directly from racism that the work we do to highlight racism issues had undermined their own suffering. Never. Now if what you say is true, you would think that would have happened several times in the six years that Migrant Tales has been running, no?

      Mind you if you can show that ethnic or racial discrimination takes place i have no problems agreeing that it would have been racism – but just because you have an opinion that something would be racism/institutional racism or something else does not turn it into such.

      It is of benefit to anti-immigration ‘sceptics’ to turn the racism issue into a ‘he said, she said’ case of claim and counter-claim. Such a scenario individualises the problems of racism, works to create fear of discussing racism among foreigners for fear of the belittling and attacks that talking about it typically has, and works to make the more subtle problems of discrimination harder to address. For example, your demand for ‘proof’ while ignoring each of the key questions that arise out of Dana’s experiences illustrates how easily this ‘he said, she said’ scenario can turn attention to matters of ‘opinion’ and ‘character’, while deflecting attention away from asking how can the state serve immigrants more effectively and in a way that fully respects their basic rights.

      By looking at the law handling family reunification there was nothing the Social Office could have done. So by telling that she ‘was refused help’ you are already introducing a bias to your description.

      This is a problem of a silo-mentality within public services, each domain dealing only with specifics and so the ‘wider’ problem affecting immigrants and their circumstances fail to be addressed. This can impact on the rights of all citizens, but when it systematically and negatively affects immigrants, it is institutional racism. Whether its intentional or not is less important for me. The fact that its defended to the point of completely invalidating the experiences of individuals and going further, attacking the personality of those individuals reporting on this negative treatment, then it very clearly demonstrates racism, the kind that fails to give due respect and dignity to people reporting on bad experiences simply because they are foreigners and they are ‘giving us a bad name’.

      My interpretation is that the office were not willing to offer any kind of further support to Dana when she needed it most. Perhaps they are ill-equipped to provide that support. It would have helped if they had proper contacts in the Iranian diaspora in Finland so that they could provide her with access to other individuals who could support her. It would help if the social office and the family reunification people could have a professional multiagency dialogue about how cases of family reunification are impacting negatively on the social and psychological well-being of clients. Such an exchange of information is more important perhaps than it looks. But assuming that there is ‘nothing to be done’ is itself a problem. Social services should never be a dead end for people looking for help. They should be a gateway. The fact you seem happy to decide that ‘nothing could be done’ merely illustrates how you are not qualified to decide on how services should operate. Clearly people’s well-being would suffer more if this were the attitude of all that work in the field. Gladly it isn’t.

      You are way too over-concerned with the accusation of racism. I am a racist in all sorts of small and subtle ways that I have to work constantly to become aware of and address. I realise this is part of my social conditioning, and like any kind of conditioning, challenging it can be very difficult. But I’m not embarrassed. It would be ironic in the extreme that I would say that we cannot deal with the problems I help create for blacks and others in our white society because it makes me uncomfortable to face my own complicity.

      At this point it is no wonder to any one (Finn) that the person who controls the premises would call the police.

      This is your tacit knowledge, something you have gained by living in Finland long enough or being born here. You cannot and must not assume that all immigrants have this same tacit knowledge. Such an assumption, especially where it leads to the criminalising of such innocuous behaviour as peaceful protest, is in itself criminal and is a totally unacceptable way to treat those who are strangers to this country and trying to engage with public services in a positive way.

      Social offices powers are controlled by the law and they can not go against it either. So in that respect the treatment of the person was similar regardless of his/her ethnicity.

      Rubbish. The social officers are not legally bound to call the police to remove someone who is sitting in a chair in their offices by way of desperation. Of course, if you want to show me the piece of regulation or guideline that would recommend that, I’d be very interested to read it. On the contrary, this kind of escalation would certainly not be recommended policy and this is why Dana got a written apology from the head of the social office.

      Eventual outcome would like been less dramatic since Finns generally (unless intoxicated) obey if told to leave the premises. But that has nothing to do with ethnicity.

      Why do you insist it has nothing to do with ethnicity? In some countries, police officers are not seen as untouchable figures of authority, but as people that you can talk to, discuss with and even negotiate with. And you don’t even have to go far afield for this to be true. Ever been to Italy? Much of the work that I have done with immigrants is about building bridges between their own cultures, experiences and expectations and that of the host country. This is often subtle but very significant work. When immigrants expect public officials to behave with the conviviality of friends and neighbours, as would have happened back home, then service providers can appear very cold, and this in turn deters them from seeking services they are entitled to. We are not talking about ‘blaming’ anyone in this situation. No-one is to blame. But when natives start to say, “hey, we don’t give a shit what your experiences are, but you just have to do as we do”, then that starts to come across as arrogant and racist. Why not simply be open to recognising the differences between cultures and making allowances within reason? After all, I’ve known many Finns who have lamented the ‘cold faces’ of bureaucracy here in Finland.

      Finns generally hold relatively high respect for the law – so it is actually fairly difficult to perceive a situation where a native Finn would refuse when police told to him/her to vacate the premises. There are actually several different violations of criminal code which if the such a location is not vacated – most likely being ‘haitanteko virkamiehelle’ (since AFAIK Kela personnel are officials even an attempt to hinder them from doing their duties could be perceived to be a criminal offence). Your personal opinion of how justified you felt that action was simply does not matter. Neither do your allegories regarding children and being able to spell have any validity since we were discussing an situation between an adult and a clearly marked (in case of police) official.

      Yawn!!! Actually, the child analogy is very telling. Your insistence that immigrants be treated as if they have a competence (of Finns) that in all likelihood they almost certainly won’t have is pretty darn strange.

      Not really, I’m just in my profession required to be thorough, rational and, probably more than anything, scientific.

      You are far from being thorough. Perhaps you make the mistake of many professionals when it comes to understanding the work of other people working in another field of expertise, you assume that they are following a similar logic to your own. Not only assume, but tacitly demand the same, even when that logic is not relevant or effective. I mean, let’s face it, there are a million, million ways to be rational in this world or even ‘scientific’. But for anyone working in public services, the value of an ‘evidence-based’ approach to all matters human is often counter-productive and fragmentary. As I said before, you have simply failed to fully appreciate the emotional turmoil of being at the mercy of Finnish bureaucracy to realise the very simple right to a normal family life. And in Dana’s case, she has now lost both parents while her case has been bogged down in the system for years. She sees that as part of the unique and negative handling of family issues relating to immigrants, while issues related to Finnish families are given far higher value and resources by comparison. It would be very strange if an immigrant did not think this was a result of racism.

      It is my assumption yes, however as was shown the traditional family unit is dissolved (and new ones are formed) in Finland when youth reach the age of 22/23. So why wouldn’t that be reflected in the Finnish legislation. It is a cultural issue but not a racist issue. Any one who genuinely wants to integrate into the Finnish society should acknowledge that.

      You are making assumptions about the legislation. Perhaps you could do some research and report back on this hunch of yours.

      It should not be a by-word thrown in when immigrant gets offended.

      This sums up your approach and its moral bankruptcy. Dana has a criminal conviction. She suffered a year with the court case hanging over her head and trying to get proper representation. Her parents are dead, while a speedier and more compassionate service of family reunification would probably have seen her spending quality time with her parents in their final years. Indeed, it might even have been that their underlying health problems could have been dealt with better here in Finland.

      This is not Dana being ‘offended’. This is Dana being seriously damaged emotionally and socially by the system. By diminishing the harms to Dana to the level of merely being ‘offended’, you feed into the typical troll debates about racism being ‘his word, her word’ where victims of racism are presented as emotionally immature individuals only out to complain. Why would someone want to claim racism? Human beings seek social cohesion. Dana is not different and she is a cheerful and sociable person who is cultured, sensitive to others and eager to contribute positively. But you reduce her to the level of someone who is ‘easily offended’. You dismiss the criminal conviction and the loss of her parents. No fault Finland. Gosh, to me, that really is morally and compassionately bankrupt.

      Yet the define or even suggest anything for those. There is no grounds for stating situation would be any different if there would be definition for a family unit since there is no mention of what it would consist of. So your claim of discrimination on that ground is false.

      Were you getting tired by the time you got to this point in your response, or is this indicative of your general intellectual laziness towards immigration issues? In the link that I gave to you on the summary, point 9, some 20 lines into the document, explicitly provides a definition for the family unit:

      In its Recommendation 1327 (1997) on the Protection and reinforcement of the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe, the Assembly interpreted “the concept of asylum-seekers’ families as including de facto family members (natural family), for example asylum-seeker’s concubine or natural children as well as elderly, infirm or otherwise dependent relations”.

      This refers to the already agreed definition, while it has been true that subsequent to this, certain member states have sought to redefine that family unit, basically imposing much tighter restrictions on family reunification.

      Per definition of justice it should be IMPARTIAL which means that no one before the law should have in any way preferential treatment.

      Not sure what childish notion you have of ‘the law’, but it seems to be completely divorced from reality. The issue of the law governing family reunification is that it applies to those specifically who have family members living outside Finland. We are talking about a specific law detailing specific rights and obligations relating to a specific group. This is by its nature assigning a ‘specialised’ treatment for that group, except that no one except an idiot would try to call it ‘preferential’ treatment, as the notion of preference is totally irrelevant and smacks of an unnecessary value judgement. The next issue is that a law can be unfair simply because it doesn’t go far enough in protecting or proscribing the rights of particular individuals or rights relating to individuals in particular circumstances. A failure to properly resource existing legislation can likewise be seen as discriminatory.

      Once again you fail to grasp the detail of the discussions and instead push this tired and well-worn agenda of reducing immigration issues to matters relating to grievance-led policy making, the premise being that immigrants should not get specialised services because this would somehow be giving ‘preference’. It’s not special treatment, it’s specialised treatment. Big difference, which muppets like you ignore it over and over in the rhetoric that undermines coherent debate on migration issues. Instead, it becomes a matter of appeasing the sense of grievance that comes from locals thinking that migrants are getting ‘more’ than them.

      This is something that you seem to be unable to grasp. And your medical analogies are badly flawed (as the goals or targets of the treatments were different).

      Wrong. The medical aims are to bring the patient back to full health, in much the same way that family reunification aims to provide a solid path to social cohesion and productivity within the new society. This is a shared goal for all citizens of Finland to which successive governments constantly recommit themselves. Clearly different approaches are needed for people in different circumstances. This is so basic a premise that I’m surprised that you seem unable to grasp or accept it.

      I wondered how it would take for you to pull the ‘Nazi’ card. Not that I’m surprised given your rhetoric. I didn’t say anything of stigmatization of vulnerable sections of society, all that is your own invention. People are not out there to get you despite of what you seem to believe.

      The Nazi card is relevant. You want to reduce racism to a narrative about the boy who cried wolf. Those were your words. Well, the biggest WOLF that Europe has seen in the last century in regard to negative stigmatisations of immigrants and ethnic groups was Nazism. Few people saw the wolf then, though many cried before, during and after the wolf all but destroyed peace and social cohesion. The leap was not so great as you seem to imagine.

  24. Brave

    Ohdake,
    And i wont take you seriously if you don’t explain whats real racist?
    In your world u r searching a mathematical line for racist matter??
    U can not put racist matter in mathematical.
    science??? Don’t think that you are most intelligent man on this earth, u can not even argue with me if u see me and face to face.
    Like i can not put ur deep pain in mathematical for understand it.
    If no-one and nothing attack you with a racist manner in this social, then how can u understand it???
    This is ur country , no-one can play with ur time
    Finnish law raped me and you telling me prove it???
    U should understand what i mean when i use rape word on this matter… if not then its not my problem.. because every one in this world knows what the mean of rape…
    I guess even aliens know this.
    Now go a nd ask ur science whats the mean of rape…
    If u had time ask it about morals too,…

  25. Brave

    Ohdake,
    My list one by one is about racist and fascist people who wear different clothes and have different race… who thinks they know better than others and they should make decision in every single situation in a social for other people, they all put a mask on their faces and try to play a fake role around.
    But u think foreigner can be racist but Finns wont and cant??
    How its come???
    Are not Finns belong to this planet??? or they are special creature??? special race?? what then_??? I am simply asking my questions
    Ohdake do not be fanatical… being fanatic is a very big mistake for a human, being fanatic can make you a racist..
    I tell you
    A racist always work against you , racist one does not like argue because they cant build but they can break.. if they argue with u it will be with anger and ignoring you.
    Don’t tell that court had right to wake against me when i was complaining racist polices and social workers… Don’t tell me ur law is perfect… ur law is not even normal… Who wrote Finnish law??? Does angels??
    U think all is great in ur social_??? Oh really???
    Not only about me a foreigner but about u a Finn., do u think all is okay_??? So u truelöy live in a paradise, and for sure u r a rich man with a big house and summer house and a lot of me per month_??? U r very health and u have no problem in ur family, with ur wife, children or boss and parents???
    Ur children are best and very intelligent and their scores are perfect…
    Ur wife respect u very well and cook for her family her best, she know how to spray love at home???
    You love her and u feel responsibility for them,, u respect ur parents perfectly and u wont leave them in elderly house, yeah???
    There is no divorce problem in this social, no tax problem, drugs and alcohol problem, …
    OH

    There is racist ( and been ) when and until there is human… this story was, is and will be… because its difficult for human to understand that he, she is not the only human in the earth.
    ….
    (I never said that. You have the rights (and responsibilities) as other people in Finland have them. But not beyond them )= but Ohdake…

    i have no responsibilities in here because no-one took and take responsibilities for all crime racist system, racist law and racist people done against me spirit, body, life and family…

  26. Brave

    Original ‘firstclass’ racism? How about bus drivers who refuse to take people to their bus due to ethnicity. Seen that happen couple of times – far less common these days though. Youth gangs formed along ethnic boundaries beating each other?
    …..
    But two big racist police pushing me between earth and sky and twisting my hands is not racist???
    Taking my finger print and photo and making me a black file is not racist???
    Yet racist police office called me ( they had not right ) for interview and a specially private court was not racist???
    Yet my lawyer telling me she don’t believe me and closed my case… was not racist
    Yet social service did not give me a lawyer and i went to court for alone was not racist???
    Finnish Swedish managers and teacher in vaasa fired me from school was not racist… they wanted show their power to all students and that was a good opportunity for them to do so
    They thought world is about control and they forgot that i have no crowed with me and ma alone.
    One manager told me she is GOD, means every body should praise her and listen to her… narrow minded woman could not even listen and talk to me.
    ….
    Ohdake
    Dont foregt
    am not here that to get ur positive comment
    because
    what can u do for me_????
    My parents gone… u cant make them alive for me with ur acceptance
    and also
    Ur negative comments does not make me liar…
    I have no worry about truth
    and
    I don’t respect Finnish law… a law hated me, showed that to me, yet show it and laughed at me
    NO
    They will cry, will come their turn

  27. Brave

    I am afraid

    I am afraid to forget you Mama
    I am afraid to let you go Baba
    I am afraid to think you are dead
    I am afraid to believe thats my fate
    I can not meet U there oh sad sad
    I can not feel U in real, oh bad bad
    Nothing can prove me you are gone
    I can not tell to me this is done
    I can not call ur name with my tongue
    I can not understand this bad gang
    They told me wait, wait wait this is law
    I can not see thats true, they are false
    I do not know why they hate me SO
    I do not get why they told me NO
    I do not want live in ugly show
    I do not want lose U please don’t go
    Oh please please please darling Dad
    You bring Mama with yours am dead sad
    I do not want be alone its not right
    I am standing with me,i’m in FIGHT
    Oh please please please darling Dad
    Find a way, come back with her, am dead sad
    Dead tired, i’m tired, come back Dad

  28. Mark

    Ohdake

    My fundamental problem with your comments is that you treat Dana and her claims of racism strategically. You try to place her comments into a wider context of immigrants making false claims of racism, of complaining, of getting preferential treatment, and failing to adapt or understand the Finnish system. You are not having a dialogue with Dana about her experiences. And a dialogue is absolutely necessary because these are everyday life experiences we are talking about here, not strategic arguments aimed at devising policies for this or that.

    Policies can and should emerge out of constructive dialogue, but trying to fit the experiences of people to the policy rather than the other way around is a failure in human compassion and a cart-before-the-horse approach to policy making. It doesn’t work very well.

    You should treat Dana rather as a human being. Show her respect and try to understand her experiences rather than jumping in trying to control the narrative because what she says might reflect badly on some Finns. This attempt to control is what prompts you to take a strategic response to Dana. And strategic responses are notoriously lacking in compassion when it comes to individuals.

    Ohdake, I’m interested, how are you directly affected by this fear of false claims of racism? How do you feel it impacts negatively on you? What are you willing to do about it? Is there a possibility that Dana is worried about racism too, and that she wants to talk about it? Is it possible to listen to Dana with a positive response and try to find out what has happened to her, rather than immediately trying to control what she thinks about it or what other people might think about her experience?

    Do you think that a lot of negative responses to Dana’s worries here on Migrant Tales improves the situation for Dana, either in the way she anticipates future problems or in the way she feels isolated and denied basic human rights here in Finland? Is there something to be learned from Dana’s situation that would be clearly something she would see as positive too? I don’t mean that we learn not to cry wolf, but that we could learn how it is that a person’s view of Finland becomes so pessimistic. After all, Dana started with a very optimistic outlook on her life in Finland. What went wrong? Is it possible to support young people like Dana in facing difficulties, perhaps with family reunification, perhaps with dealing with bureaucracy?

    What really made you want to comment on her story here? Did you think you would get a negative response? It was interesting that you anticipated the ‘Nazi’ comment, and yet you didn’t make the link yourself between downplaying discrimination and prejudice issues and the rise of social division and second-class citizenship, both of which are a clear legacy of that period in our history in Europe. Now that you’ve heard the Nazi connection, do you think that I think you are a Nazi, or was I just pointing out that taking this ‘I’m just concerned about our society and the ills of racism’ can be approached equally from two directions. You worry about the ‘cry wolf’, but there is legitimacy too in worrying about the rise of extremism and ‘cold-hearted’ policies and attitudes towards immigrants.

    Dana is convinced her experience is down to racism. The irony is that as long as she claims this, it is probably less and less likely that she will get a positive response from Finns, which may further reinforce the sense of alienation and hostility that she feels. Matters quickly fall into a blame game. Why are Finns so sensitive about the ‘racism’ label? You say it waters down real racism, and yet there are clearly elements in Dana’s story that may reflect real discrimination. We really cannot know. So why turn your eyes away from those possibilities and demand, rather, that Dana change the way she thinks and acts? Is that really the solution here?

    What would it be like if a Finn actually reached out to Dana compassionately? There is no reason to answer the question of racism, as this is always a difficult question. Is that really the most important thing and is it the path to providing Dana with more meaningful relationships with Finns? It is still possible to reach out to Dana and find out what has caused so much difficulties, and to give a shoulder of support, without having to argue about the racism? She is a human being first and foremost and not merely a stooge in academic or politicised debates about racism.

  29. ohdake

    I find that extremely hard to believe.

    That is your personal problem, not mine.

    Now if what you say is true, you would think that would have happened several times in the six years that Migrant Tales has been running, no?

    Devaluing a term, just like in the story of the boy who cried wolf, is a gradual process, it does not happen by sudden steps like you seem to understand it. So there wouldn’t be any complaints to begin with.

    My interpretation is that the office were not willing to offer any kind of further support to Dana when she needed it most. Perhaps they are ill-equipped to provide that support.

    Not ill-equipped but if you look at the law and Dana’s needs then those needs were beyond what law allowed for. Which should have meant a summarily rejection of Dana’s plea. Which – wonder of wonders – is exactly what happened. You seem to be demanding that social services should have intentionally broken the law when their client so requests.

    This is your tacit knowledge, something you have gained by living in Finland long enough or being born here. You cannot and must not assume that all immigrants have this same tacit knowledge.

    That does not really matter. When you are in a foreign country you need to follow the laws of that country regardless of how alien or strange those laws might seem to be. Immigrants are not above such basic rules. Besides none of that had anything to do with criminalization. It was Dana’s own choice not to heed the order from the Police that was the breach.

    The social officers are not legally bound to call the police to remove someone who is sitting in a chair in their offices by way of desperation.

    As usual you seem to go to great lenghts to intentionally misunderstand what I wrote. Calling the police was the sole legal way for the social officers to remove some one from their premises if that some one refused to do so when requested by the social officers.

    Why do you insist it has nothing to do with ethnicity? In some countries, police officers are not seen as untouchable figures of authority, but as people that you can talk to, discuss with and even negotiate with.

    Neither are they such in Finland either. You can talk and discuss with them which usually (in cases I have witnessed) tends to lead to a quick resolution of the situation without any criminal issues. However if a police officer issues an order you need to heed to it. That is not open to discussion nor is it in any way related to bureaucracy.

    Yawn!!! Actually, the child analogy is very telling.

    It isn’t. People are required to follow the laws of the county where they are. Not being able to spell is not a crime.

    It would be very strange if an immigrant did not think this was a result of racism.

    Given that in Dana’s case by all appearances there wasn’t really case to begin with since the family members were not part of the family in the eyes of the law. Therefore it is rather difficult to see that as racism at all.

    Dana has a criminal conviction. She suffered a year with the court case hanging over her head and trying to get proper representation. Her parents are dead, while a speedier and more compassionate service of family reunification would probably have seen her spending quality time with her parents in their final years.

    But that (family reunification in the style Dana wanted it) would have also been in violation of the law – which makes the issue quite a bit more difficult for you. Also lack of representation is hardly surprising if the case is such that there was really nothing left to than settling the matter before the court.

    This refers to the already agreed definition, while it has been true that subsequent to this, certain member states have sought to redefine that family unit, basically imposing much tighter restrictions on family reunification.

    No, it is not a ‘already agreed definition’. It is nothing but a recommendation. Given that it is nothing but a recommendation (not law, directive, demand or other such) it has no practical value what so ever regardless of how many times you provide the link or copy paste the entry..

    Wrong. The medical aims are to bring the patient back to full health, in much the same way that family reunification aims to provide a solid path to social cohesion and productivity within the new society. This is a shared goal for all citizens of Finland to which successive governments constantly recommit themselves. Clearly different approaches are needed for people in different circumstances. This is so basic a premise that I’m surprised that you seem unable to grasp or accept it.

    Except your example was comparing apples with oranges without any relevance to the matter at hand. What your ‘clever’ analogy missed is that problem (ie. The symptom) was all the time the same regardless of ethnic background. Then again I wasn’t surprised that you failed to grasp that.

    I’m pretty sure you have no real concept of my ‘attitude’.

    I have pretty good idea of yor attitude adter reading your comments that I would be a ‘muppet’ in addition to being a ‘joke’ and ‘unable to understand’. If it helps your self esteem to consider other people as being inferior to you then keep on posting your quips and veiled insults but don’t expect to be taken seriously.

    —-

    You are not having a dialogue with Dana about her experiences. And a dialogue is absolutely necessary because these are everyday life experiences we are talking about here, not strategic arguments aimed at devising policies for this or that.

    Given that Dana has not expressed that she would be in way interest to take part into a dialogue I fail to see your point.

    Ohdake, I’m interested, how are you directly affected by this fear of false claims of racism? How do you feel it impacts negatively on you? What are you willing to do about it? Is there a possibility that Dana is worried about racism too, and that she wants to talk about it? Is it possible to listen to Dana with a positive response and try to find out what has happened to her, rather than immediately trying to control what she thinks about it or what other people might think about her experience?

    I’m not really affected in any way. It does not impact negatively at me at all. Given that the source for the false claims of racism is not mine to control I fail to see how I could be able to anything about it beyond of noting what actually was discrimination and what was not. So far there has been no real indication that she would be interested of talking about it. Given how Dana’s family reunification request was in contrast with the law and how her own actions resulted in the ‘criminalization’ it is rather difficult to find a positive response.
    Just to make it clear if Dana was a ‘native Finn’ I would have laughed openly at her face because of her ‘criminalization’.

    Do you think that a lot of negative responses to Dana’s worries here on Migrant Tales improves the situation for Dana, either in the way she anticipates future problems or in the way she feels isolated and denied basic human rights here in Finland? Is there something to be learned from Dana’s situation that would be clearly something she would see as positive too? I don’t mean that we learn not to cry wolf, but that we could learn how it is that a person’s view of Finland becomes so pessimistic. After all, Dana started with a very optimistic outlook on her life in Finland. What went wrong? Is it possible to support young people like Dana in facing difficulties, perhaps with family reunification, perhaps with dealing with bureaucracy?

    It might if there is she understands why the events took place instead of piling it all on ‘racism’. Given Dana’s posts I really doubt there is anything that can be learned from the incidents that she would see as positive – mind you I don’t really see it positive either, more as unfortunate, but as that is how laws state it is that is how it is. Helping her to deal with bureaucracy is not wrong but implying that she could get things done against the law (be it either the Finnish damily reunification or resistance to police officer) is only causing harm to her.

    What really made you want to comment on her story here? Did you think you would get a negative response?

    Initially it was her claim that law would have been somehow racist – followed with her statements that implied that people who disagreed with her are her enemies and that “Soon Finland will cry”. Given how ferociously people who disagree with immigrants and their problems are attacked at MT I perceived that I would get a negative response.

    Why are Finns so sensitive about the ‘racism’ label? You say it waters down real racism, and yet there are clearly elements in Dana’s story that may reflect real discrimination. We really cannot know. So why turn your eyes away from those possibilities and demand, rather, that Dana change the way she thinks and acts? Is that really the solution here?

    Not really sensitive about some some certain label. Sensitive about accuracy of claims. I don’t demand that Dana should change but she ought to understand what took place and why. As it does not appear to have been a result of police brutality or racist social service officers. Understanding the laws in place in the country you reside in is rather important.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      That is your personal problem, not mine.

      It’s not a problem Ohdake, providing you with a different point of view. Don’t sweat!

      Devaluing a term, just like in the story of the boy who cried wolf, is a gradual process, it does not happen by sudden steps like you seem to understand it. So there wouldn’t be any complaints to begin with.

      My dear colleague, you have not yet shown that you understand the value of this term racism, let alone convinced me that you are qualified to tell me when it is being devalued. Indeed, much of my previous post was geared to pointing this out. Let’s see how far you go this time in explaining or factoring in the value of challenging racism. [postscript – you didn’t waste a single sentence on explaining the REAL value of ‘racism’ as a term]

      Not ill-equipped but if you look at the law and Dana’s needs then those needs were beyond what law allowed for.

      Ohdake. Please, take a moment to absorb what I’m going to tell you. The LAW does not prescribe for every single decision make by social workers. A great deal of social work is geared towards supporting, empowering and activating clients. These are not desicions or sentences prescribed in law, but they are a very large part of social work.

      You seem to be demanding that social services should have intentionally broken the law when their client so requests.

      And what law do you think I was asking the social services to break exactly, I wonder?

      That does not really matter.

      Actually it does. In Finland, understanding tacit knowledge and its role in social work and in regard to a client’s resources is recognised as very important. I’d say take my word for it, but that’s unlikely, so go talk to some real social workers, or managers, or better still, the people whose job it is to train social workers in Finland. I imagine they will broaden your understanding.

      Calling the police was the sole legal way for the social officers to remove some one from their premises if that some one refused to do so when requested by the social officers.

      This is so blatantly false, it barely deserves an answer, but given the strength of your conviction on this, I guess I have to point out the obvious. This event did not take place at closing time. They could in effect have waited the rest of the day for Dana to calm down and then look at their options. They could have asked the Vartija to talk to her; they didn’t. Likewise, they could have asked her back into an interview room to further discuss the issue. They could have just listened and tried to understand why Dana was so fed up in the first place. I wonder how you would feel if you were arguing with somebody and felt completely let down and they responded to your frustration by threatening to call the police. I wonder if you know how it feels for an Iranian to be threatened with the Police, how much of an ‘insult’ that is, and also a frightening situation.

      As this was the result of calling Dana into the offices, specifically for an appointment to deal with the issue at hand, then clearly their refusal to continue discussing the issue that they themselves had called her in to talk about was something of an odd response. They also could have contacted people in the Iranian community (assuming that they have developed effective community links) and sought out an intermediary, both to support Dana and to provide her with stronger representation and a more effective means to bridge the obvious culture gap that existed. Calling the police was an idiotic response that defies the whole ethos of the social service institution in regard to respecting clients! We are not talking about a drunk collapsed on a stool in the social office, after all.

      Neither are they such in Finland either. You can talk and discuss with them [the Police]

      Yes, which is exactly what the social services staff took advantage of in order to further their own flawed agenda. There was not room for Dana to discuss with them and NO-ONE saw fit to make any room, either. The coercian of the staff was initially resisted by the police as being ‘inappropriate’, but after some persuasion, they felt compelled to oblige. How much did Dana’s ethnicity have to do with that decision to go against their initial judgement? Likewise, according to Dana’s report, the police didn’t actually talk to her. They simply grabbed her and manhandled her out of the building and took her to the police station where she was handcuffed for long periods alone in a cell, before being photographed and fingerprinted. A humiliating experience considering the day started with her attending an appointment that the social service people had themselves insisted upon. Failures, failures, failures!!!!

      tends to lead to a quick resolution of the situation without any criminal issues.

      Dana was entirely shocked when the male police officers grabbed her body, grabbed her legs and were physically ‘removing’ her from the building. She resisted. This is perfectly understandable when you understand where Dana grew up. A man touching her in this ‘aggressive’ and physical manner as a means of resolution to a dispute would be unheard of, even if the police there can still be oppressive. And you really have to ask yourself why it would be the first response in this kind of situation in Finland too. So, Dana was charged with kicking over chairs and causing ‘criminal damage’. That was the ‘criminal’ element. Can you imagine. How ridiculous is that! How unnecessary is that! Really, only an idiot would think this kind of ‘letter of the law’ response would have been appropriate as a way to deal with somebody who is feeling desperate and confused in a foreign country trying to deal with authorities in a foreign language and in regard to a very complicated beaurocracy. Really, we can and must do better for immigrants. Indeed, I would be quite shocked if a native was treated this way.

      However if a police officer issues an order you need to heed to it. That is not open to discussion nor is it in any way related to bureaucracy.

      I thought you just said it was open to discussion – not a dozen lines above? A panic response can be either fight, flight or freeze. It appears that Dana’s reaction was ‘freeze’, and the question I therefore want to ask is whether we are going to criminalise the feeling of panic in this way? Do you want to criminalise the feeling of panic, Ohdake? She was sat on a chair feeling quite overwhelmed by the whole situation, as well as humiliated that the police had been called.

      It isn’t. People are required to follow the laws of the county where they are. Not being able to spell is not a crime.

      Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. If someone intentionally stole something and then complained that the police over-reacted by arresting them, I would agree that your argument applies. But if an individual who is by definition marginalised, potentially suffering from all sorts of negative effects of being a refugee in a foreign country finds herself in a position of making a ‘protest’ by sitting in a chair, then I would say that the last thing that situation needs is a ‘police response’. It was totally unnecessary. It was perhaps inevitable that once the police were called that they would decide to act, but even then, it appears that the social workers involved did not heed the advice of the police that their presence was not warranted. And the police allowed themselves to be persuaded against their initial judgement. I guess you don’t see that as even remotely problematic, even given their own reluctance. No room for criticism anywhere in this. The Finnish system is perfect. I shake my head in sad reflection.

      Given that in Dana’s case by all appearances there wasn’t really case to begin with since the family members were not part of the family in the eyes of the law. Therefore it is rather difficult to see that as racism at all.

      Well, I would view your very shallow response to this question as likely evidence of your own racism.

      But that (family reunification in the style Dana wanted it) would have also been in violation of the law

      Absolutey not. Clearly you have been too lazy to read the link I gave to you that detailed the current European guidance on what constitutes a family member eligible to be considered under family reunification laws, and her family members certainly come within that definition. If Finland chooses to make a stricter definition, like many countries, then that is in defiance of the guidance of the European Parliament.

      Also lack of representation is hardly surprising if the case is such that there was really nothing left to than settling the matter before the court.

      As to the legal standing, I cannot comment as I’m not qualified. But I will make the observation that many rulings are appealed and are reversed on appeal, which suggests to me that taking a ruling as somehow being a definitive interpretation of the law would be foolhardy. Moreover, as the European Commission sees fit to criticise national governments on this issue, it is hardly a defence that you would claim that if the national government in Finland makes the decision, it is therefore above criticism.

      No, it is not a ‘already agreed definition’.

      It is agreed, by the European Parliament. The fact that this agreement is not binding does not mean that there is no agreement. Typically, the European Parliament issues Recommendations as a preparation for future legislation. Even though they are not legally binding, recommendations certainly have legal weight, as they have been arrived at through proper procedure; they are the staple means by which the European Parliament, the most democratic of European bodies, actually demonstrates its collective political will. Of course, you will get some member states or state departments who for various reasons will attempt to thwart that will. But simply calling it ‘nothing but’ a recommendation is dismissing the most democratic institution at the European level. Fine, if you have such disrespect for such democratic instruments, then you clearly are not a great lover of democracy.

      What your ‘clever’ analogy missed is that problem (ie. The symptom) was all the time the same regardless of ethnic background.

      We seem to have travelled far from my original analogy. I said it’s a bit like treating someone who has cancer as if they had heart disease on the basis that the majority of patients suffer heart disease rather than cancer [treating immigrants as if they knew exactly how the Finnish system works]. I never mentioned symptoms. You stated that if the law treated people ‘differently’ then it would be definitely unjust. The analogy demonstrates that the law MUST treat people differently because certain aspects of law apply to only people with specific ‘symptoms’. If you ignore symptoms, THEN you are in a position where you would treat someone with cancer as if they had heart disease because heart disease was the most common disease [i.e. heart disease is the ‘tacit knowledge’ that everyone is assumed to have]. Likewise, if you assume that you can treat all people equally regardless of need, then in fact you end up treating people with mental illness, or physical disability, or lack of education, or physical illness exactly as if they were able-bodied; in other words, you would not provide them with any ‘specialised’ services, because that is ‘different’ to what you would need to provide to someone who is able-bodied. Yes, it’s clever to think this way. I agree.

      I have pretty good idea of yor attitude adter reading your comments that I would be a ‘muppet’ in addition to being a ‘joke’ and ‘unable to understand’.

      Are you complaining because I belittle your arguments? Fine. I think that you’re arguments are dangerous. I mean, really dangerous. And yet you are clearly someone who can articulate an opinion. To call you a joke is actually truly an understatement. To call you a muppet is kind. To say you ‘don’t understand’ is to effectively write in a foreign languageIndeed, I was being kind. You are, in truth, merely dangerous, a person abusing their intellectual abilities to undermine a compassionate response and policy towards immigrants in Finland.

      If it helps your self esteem to consider other people as being inferior to you then keep on posting your quips and veiled insults but don’t expect to be taken seriously.

      You are not inferior. I do not see it as inferior or superior. You are another person with a different view. I’m sure there are things in your perspective that are valuable to this debate. If nothing else, understanding your ignorance is important if this debate is to move forward. Indeed, we cannot move forward WITHOUT YOU. You, my colleague are far more important in some ways than I am, because you constitute part of the obstacle towards a healthy society. I am no more valuable as a person than you are. We differ and that is fine. I respect your right to an opinion. What concerns me is that you are using your intellegence in a way that harms another human being. That much about you is very clear to me. I’m very sad about that. Moreover, I will challenge you for as long as you continue to do that on this website. I certainly don’t assume you are a bad person, and I’m sure you are a good father, mother, husband, wife or whatever other roles you have in life. But when it comes to being a friend to immigrants – I’d say on this evidence, you are not a good friend. You are not a good friend to the human rights cause in general. That’s my opinion. But it’s only an opinion and I reall don’t know that much about you, so perhaps this is actually an abberation rather than a consistent trend in your thinking or approach. You never know. Really, you don’t.

      Given that Dana has not expressed that she would be in way interest to take part into a dialogue I fail to see your point.

      Perhaps if you stop disrespecting her, you might be surprised at what Dana is prepared to discuss. She is not someone who hides her light under a bushel, after all. She will talk to you if you talk to her respectfully and she will be open with you, and I think she will willingly explain herself if you approach her in a respectful manner, if ‘seeking to understand’ her situation is your genuine goal.

      I’m not really affected in any way. It does not impact negatively at me at all.

      Okay, but you do realise that racist attitudes and even discussions of racism have concrete effects on immigrants living in Finland? Perhaps because they have experiences and you do not, you are in a position to learn something from them? No?

      Given that the source for the false claims of racism is not mine to control

      Stop being so arrogant. You and I do not know the reality of whether Dana’s claim about racism is true or false. We don’t know. We can construct arguments, sift through evidence, and test the various assumptions of all the actors involved, though in truth we have very little ability to really do that. We simply cannot definitively say whether this was or was not racism. Dana is in a much better position and that is her view.

      What we can do is ask if the outcome matches a desired result. Do we want immigrants to be criminalised for not understanding or not having the Finnish system adequately explained to them? Do we want to criminalise refugees for sitting on chairs in frustration? Personally, I don’t. And if that is more likely to happen because Finns have no tolerance or patience to reach out or make the special efforts necessary to support foreigners, then I will very definitely call that racism. It is the ‘intolerance’ and the discrimination that that entails that leads me towards a conclusion of racism, and not specifically any proven intent to deny black people, or brown people the full rights of citizenship; however, I also accept that these attitudes can be behind this kind of intolerance, as can a general level of ignorance.

      Just to make it clear if Dana was a ‘native Finn’ I would have laughed openly at her face because of her ‘criminalization’.

      Well, clearly you are not sensitive. Other people’s lives and circumstances are merely a source of entertainment for you. Brave New World, eh! Yep, I can see that you have very high ideals and a sustainable and admirable set of human values.

      Given Dana’s posts I really doubt there is anything that can be learned from the incidents that she would see as positive – mind you I don’t really see it positive either, more as unfortunate, but as that is how laws state it is that is how it is. Helping her to deal with bureaucracy is not wrong but implying that she could get things done against the law (be it either the Finnish damily reunification or resistance to police officer) is only causing harm to her.

      Your insistence on presenting her demands as somehow ‘against the law’ is something I really don’t understand. From what I understand, Dana only wanted to have more patience and willingness to engage with her over her difficulties. This is not simply about the reunification, and reunification was not the reason she was visiting the social. I guess you will have to discuss that with Dana. However, reunification is a big part of why Dana feels that the Finnish system has failed her on a human level. Finns understand the importance of family, yet they don’t apply the same standard to the families of immigrants. It’s that simple. And in doing so, they discriminate, in a way that is despicable in my eyes. Finns are not alone in Europe in following this rather callous road, not that this makes it any less disgusting.

      Initially it was her claim that law would have been somehow racist

      Do you accept that under-resourcing a law that serves the rights of immigrants can, in effect, result in a ‘racist’ outcome, i.e. a different level of service for immigrants? When you think of racism, don’t think hatred, but think something that undermines the fundamental rights of an ethnic, national or religious group. Do you think that interpreting a law in a way that undermines a stated ‘human right’, and the right to family (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights); Artical 16, 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; International Covenent on Political and Civil Rights: Article 23) is not undermining human rights and doing this specifically for an ethnic or national group other than THE national group is discriminatory? After all, immigration policy affects immigrants most directly.

      Not really sensitive about some some certain label. Sensitive about accuracy of claims.

      Finland is big enough in today’s world to live with Dana’s claims, true or false. What surprises me is why you don’t consider her well-being to be more important than her claims. After all, if a person who is suffering symtoms of extreme stress fails to express themselves with the greatest degree of elegance, do you consider that grounds for refusing to treat them or to consider seriously their predicament?

      The fact is that regardless of her claims, she is a person who came to Finland as a refugee, fought for seven years to be reunited with her elderly parents, but found that this country that offered her sanctuary nevertheless deemed her ‘right to family’ to be a matter for ‘legal deliberation’ and upon deliberation denied her that right to family, in spite of various international covenents and commitments stating the importance of family to successful integration. Instead, we have a criminalised immigrant who feels abandoned in her so-called benevolant country of new citizenship, bereft of her parents, bereft of compassion, and bereft of even the right to complain, if people like yourself were to be successful in shutting her up.

      Not on my watch, matey!

  30. Brave

    Ohdake,
    Devaluing a term, just like in the story of the boy who cried wolf, is a gradual process, it does not happen by sudden steps like you seem to understand it. So there wouldn’t be any complaints to begin with.
    ….
    I am agree with you, you area wolf,a wolf in darkness,a paralysis wolf, a wolf without a root and a wolf who barking for a brave bird… You understand nothing, zero…Dont worship ur wolf character.

  31. Brave

    Hey wolf,
    Not ill-equipped but if you look at the law and Dana’s needs then those needs were beyond what law allowed for. Which should have meant a summarily rejection of Dana’s plea. Which – wonder of wonders – is exactly what happened. You seem to be demanding that social services should have intentionally broken the law when their client so requests.
    ……
    First of all u teethless wolf are a cruel like those social workers
    Secondly you and your favorite social workers plus polices are racist because you are on a same line…am not surprise at all.
    You are all against law. morality law… for u stands against morals
    Even a 3 years child knows that sitting on a chair is not a crime… and again even a 3 years old child knows they are racists and who support them is so…
    U got it tired wolf?
    Also be aware i do not acre about u… who are u to come here and judging me????
    You think am here for your acceptance… i am belong to light, i have wings, am not match with a wolf.
    Am not surprise a wolf never do justice… u just show ur real face,…

  32. Brave

    That does not really matter. When you are in a foreign country you need to follow the laws of that country regardless of how alien or strange those laws might seem to be. Immigrants are not above such basic rules. Besides none of that had anything to do with criminalization. It was Dana’s own choice not to heed the order from the Police that was the breach.
    ………
    it does not really matter? yes for you and ur wife who were sitting in a safe line when i was under force between two racist polices…
    U can not speak like this if this was happened to ur wife, sister, or daughter…
    u could not even talk about ur argue about with other people
    it does not matters for wolfs… but its matter for human beings for sure

  33. Brave

    I have pretty good idea of yor attitude after reading your comments that I would be a ‘muppet’ in addition to being a ‘joke’ and ‘unable to understand’. If it helps your self esteem to consider other people as being inferior to you then keep on posting your quips and veiled insults but don’t expect to be taken seriously.
    …….
    Ohdake, so
    U mean the only one has right to insult others is you yes?
    You and politeness??? U R very far of it, you even don’t know how to talk to me, u just open ur mouth and barking
    ……………………………………………
    Soon Finland will cry… no doubt
    And u should understand a law of respect and a law of moral
    Respect to a woman???? Learn it learn it learn it
    Do not tell me that u r coming from a middle of a forest or behind the black mountains… even u tell so… am not surprise… u looks quiet normal for this type of character

  34. Brave

    For you Ohdake,

    Wolf shaking

    When a wolf is angry and tired…
    A bird is singing because wolf is fired
    When a wolf is full of doubt and jealousy
    A bird dancing with a flower oh thats so pretty
    Wolf is belong to bullying and darkness
    But a bird is coming from beauty and lightness
    When a wolf is hungry to drink my blood
    I can fly up and upper and make a flood
    Soon Finland will cry be aware
    If you are not guilty, why DO you care?

  35. ohdake

    Ohdake. Please, take a moment to absorb what I’m going to tell you. The LAW does not prescribe for every single decision make by social workers. A great deal of social work is geared towards supporting, empowering and activating clients. These are not desicions or sentences prescribed in law, but they are a very large part of social work.

    Except all their decisions are made within the context of the law. They can not go against it which is exactly what you seem to be demanding that they should have.

    This event did not take place at closing time. They could in effect have waited the rest of the day for Dana to calm down and then look at their options. They could have asked the Vartija to talk to her; they didn’t.

    What I remember of the issues related to the extent of power the guards can utilize if a person refuses to leave there is nothing ‘Vartija’ can legally do in such a case. If there was nothing the social workers could have done there really wasn’t anything left to discuss. Dana’s refusal to accept that does not help the case at all.

    Calling the police was an idiotic response that defies the whole ethos of the social service institution in regard to respecting clients! We are not talking about a drunk collapsed on a stool in the social office, after all.

    Yet calling the police was the only legal way to handle the issue if there was nothing the social workers could have done for the case and Dana still refused to leave the premises after being told to do so. Do note that even hindering the work of an official (like social worker) could be understood as being a legal infraction on its own.

    Dana was entirely shocked when the male police officers grabbed her body, grabbed her legs and were physically ‘removing’ her from the building. She resisted.

    Physical resistance to a police officer happens to be illegal. So I fail to see what exactly was so odd in the end result of the scuffle. That is she had every chance to leave the premises peacefully but instead chose not to. You could argue that is was ‘civil disobedience’ but that does not really matter, even in such a case it would have been going against the law.

    I thought you just said it was open to discussion – not a dozen lines above?

    Police officers usually try to get things resolved by discussing the matter with the people involved. However if a police officer gives an order, it is not open to discussion.

    But if an individual who is by definition marginalised, potentially suffering from all sorts of negative effects of being a refugee in a foreign country finds herself in a position of making a ‘protest’ by sitting in a chair, then I would say that the last thing that situation needs is a ‘police response’. It was totally unnecessary. It was perhaps inevitable that once the police were called that they would decide to act, but even then, it appears that the social workers involved did not heed the advice of the police that their presence was not warranted.

    Since I have nothing on side of what actually took place – and given the situation I do not expect Dana’s description to be totally unbiased (neither do I believe that social worker’s report would be either) – it is rather difficult to say if it was warranted or not. However Dana had all the time a clear and distinct chance of walking out.

    The Finnish system is perfect.

    Far from it. However in the case in question I do not see a failures in that respect.

    Absolutey not. Clearly you have been too lazy to read the link I gave to you that detailed the current European guidance on what constitutes a family member eligible to be considered under family reunification laws, and her family members certainly come within that definition.

    What you linked to was not a guidance, recommendation or anything else. It was a draft document. Which means it has even less value than I previously thought it had.

    It is agreed, by the European Parliament. The fact that this agreement is not binding does not mean that there is no agreement. Typically, the European Parliament issues Recommendations as a preparation for future legislation.

    Until it is accepted into the legislation of the member state in question it does not have relevance. That is how laws work. It simply does not matter what EP recommends – all what matters is what the member state’s law states on the issue.

    Likewise, if you assume that you can treat all people equally regardless of need, then in fact you end up treating people with mental illness, or physical disability, or lack of education, or physical illness exactly as if they were able-bodied; in other words, you would not provide them with any ‘specialised’ services, because that is ‘different’ to what you would need to provide to someone who is able-bodied.

    Quite a bit off the mark as usual. No, nothing like that. What I referred to that in the cases you outlined the problems or the issues had already been found to be similar – it was not as if some one would have been treated badly. Hence your whole allegory did not fit to the case to begin with.

    But when it comes to being a friend to immigrants – I’d say on this evidence, you are not a good friend. You are not a good friend to the human rights cause in general. That’s my opinion.

    I rather choose to obey the law than act against it. If that is unacceptable to immigrants then there is very little I can do to help.

    She will talk to you if you talk to her respectfully and she will be open with you, and I think she will willingly explain herself if you approach her in a respectful manner, if ‘seeking to understand’ her situation is your genuine goal.

    There has been ample chance for that by now. Yet, nothing from Dana.

    What we can do is ask if the outcome matches a desired result. Do we want immigrants to be criminalised for not understanding or not having the Finnish system adequately explained to them? Do we want to criminalise refugees for sitting on chairs in frustration? Personally, I don’t. And if that is more likely to happen because Finns have no tolerance or patience to reach out or make the special efforts necessary to support foreigners, then I will very definitely call that racism.

    Not quite. It is racism if it discriminates against the foreigners. If every one is dealt with the same way then regardless of how cold, intolerant, impatient, or unbearable that might feel it is no racism.

    Well, clearly you are not sensitive. Other people’s lives and circumstances are merely a source of entertainment for you. Brave New World, eh! Yep, I can see that you have very high ideals and a sustainable and admirable set of human values.

    Not entertainment. It is just that people deal with different matters in different ways. I wouldn’t laugh at some one getting suffered an accident but I might if some one went to his way to create a scene where he would suffer an accident (i.e. kerjätä verta nenästään). That has really nothing to do with how I view the human values. Given that in Dana’s case she every chance of walking away and resolving the issue later with the social services I just view the matter as belonging to the second category.

    Your insistence on presenting her demands as somehow ‘against the law’ is something I really don’t understand. From what I understand, Dana only wanted to have more patience and willingness to engage with her over her difficulties. This is not simply about the reunification, and reunification was not the reason she was visiting the social.

    If the social services were not accomodating then she had legal avenues for which making the complaints about it. Impromptu expressions of disagreements are not such.

    Do you think that interpreting a law in a way that undermines a stated ‘human right’, and the right to family (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights); Artical 16, 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; International Covenent on Political and Civil Rights: Article 23) is not undermining human rights and doing this specifically for an ethnic or national group other than THE national group is discriminatory?

    None of those deal with actual family reunification. All that they is with fundamental human rights. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights refers to right of having privacy. Not to right of having a family. As to the articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they refer to the right of having a family, they does not define it in any way. While reading those you still need keep in mind that family is usually identified as being parents (and possibly under aged children). All which is allowed by the Finnish law for family reunification – so no, I do not see there undermining of human rights.

    The fact is that regardless of her claims, she is a person who came to Finland as a refugee, fought for seven years to be reunited with her elderly parents, but found that this country that offered her sanctuary nevertheless deemed her ‘right to family’ to be a matter for ‘legal deliberation’ and upon deliberation denied her that right to family, in spite of various international covenents and commitments stating the importance of family to successful integration. Instead, we have a criminalised immigrant who feels abandoned in her so-called benevolant country of new citizenship, bereft of her parents, bereft of compassion, and bereft of even the right to complain, if people like yourself were to be successful in shutting her up.

    Quite a bit wrong. If she felt she was badly treated then she ought to (and really should) complain about it. However if she is making claims like it was ‘racist’ then she ought to really back such claims with something concrete – that is beyond of some one just giving a cold shoulder. And there are legal channels for making the complaints, acting against the law only hurts your own cause regardless of how justified you might feel doing so. And as discussed above the ‘international covenants & commitments’ were not exactly as binding as you tried to imply – all that matters is how the local law sees the matter.

    • Mark

      ohdake

      Except all their decisions are made within the context of the law.

      Everyone’s decisons are made in the context of the law. That tells us diddley shit, mate. The question is, was it ILLEGAL to not call the police, and clealry it isn’t. They are not ‘obliged’ to call the police, that is one response at their disposal. Any talk of obeying the law is twaddle.

      They can not go against it which is exactly what you seem to be demanding that they should have.

      Once again, you have failed to name the actual law they would have been broken if they had not called the police.

      Yet calling the police was the only legal way to handle the issue if there was nothing the social workers could have done for the case

      Simply repeating this does not make it true. How do you personally know there was nothing else that could be done? Why are you ignoring the suggestions being made for alternative courses of action? Why did the head of the unit write to Dana to apologise for the way she was treated, if there was nothing that could have been done differently?

      Physical resistance to a police officer happens to be illegal.

      It is, but then the police also have codes of conduct too, and they too should have explored all avenues. At the same time, the police should also have sensitivity training to understand that Muslim women may react differently to being ‘handled’, and that it signifies a far bigger ‘crisis’ than it might to a Westerner. What does it take to show some understanding here?

      It should not have come to that. Absolutely not. Failures all around which you are not even talking about. You’re ignoring them. Over and over. And I will keep repeating them, Ohdake until you wake up and realise that we do not live in a police state and that all actions must be justified and proportionate. In this case, the threshold for action was far too low, probably because Dana was a foreigner, when in fact the threshold should have been much higher for the very same reason. Again, you are ignoring these very basic facts about the case.

      Police officers usually try to get things resolved by discussing the matter with the people involved. However if a police officer gives an order, it is not open to discussion.

      All very clear when you know how the system works, isn’t it! Your arrogance doesn’t make up not even beginning to consider the matter of accountability for police actions. The situation is that should Dana’s behaviour be ‘criminalised’, or should there be a more coherant and thought-out response that avoids that kind of escalation? The answer is really quite clear – it was unnecessary.

      Since I have nothing on side of what actually took place – and given the situation I do not expect Dana’s description to be totally unbiased (neither do I believe that social worker’s report would be either) – it is rather difficult to say if it was warranted or not. However Dana had all the time a clear and distinct chance of walking out.

      Finally, something approaching realism. Yes, Dana had the chance to walk out. But I think she also has the rigth to protest and to receive a better quality of service that doesn’t immediately seek to criminalise here when she disagrees with a decision or decides to sit in a chair in the corridor by way of protest.

      Far from it. However in the case in question I do not see a failures in that respect.

      Ohdake, what do you know about how the system works? Have you worked as a social worker? Have you had any training as a social worker? Or have you only ever been a client? I have worked in the the field of social work research for a few months short of ten years. I think I know something about how the system is supposed to operate and the principles they are supposed to operate under, especially when it comes to dealing with the complex needs of refugees. I’m not saying the work is easy, but the guidelines are clear that the approach should be supportive, empowering and respectful. That’s an absolute cast iron fact, Ohdake, which you clearly do not want to process.

      What you linked to was not a guidance, recommendation or anything else. It was a draft document. Which means it has even less value than I previously thought it had.

      Actually, there was specific reference in the document to the numbered reference for the Recommendation in question. Likewise, there was also a summary of the family unit definition. Stop your moaning and do some research.

      Until it is accepted into the legislation of the member state in question it does not have relevance. That is how laws work.

      Ignorance is bliss. Yes, it does have relevance and no, that is not how European or Finnish politics for that matter operates. The Finns will have a position worked out in regard to the Recommendation. That position is constantly being argued over in the immigration debates. It’s hardly ‘irrelevant’. Many Finns resist the idea of tightening up any interpretations of reunification rules in Finland.

      It simply does not matter what EP recommends – all what matters is what the member state’s law states on the issue.

      Actually, law is only one level of governance, which also includes guidance, recommendations, oversight, appeals processes, and policy documents. These forms of instruments guide decision-making, policy development and discussions. It is simply naive to think that politics or policy in Finland is just about ‘the law’. This is not the world of Judge Dredd, Ohdake.

      the problems or the issues had already been found to be similar – it was not as if some one would have been treated badly. Hence your whole allegory did not fit to the case to begin with.

      Can you be any more vague? Actually, the danger of treating human beings as if they were all the same should be obvious to all but an imbecile or a sophist fool.

      I rather choose to obey the law than act against it. If that is unacceptable to immigrants then there is very little I can do to help.

      Your are completely out of your depth in this debate, and you are not offering anything like a useful or helpful opinion. Your stance is to spout ‘the LAW, the LAW, the LAW’, as if you were a hypnotised parrot that was left in a dark room too long. There is a great deal more to these issues than ‘the law’. Simply demanding that immigrants understand ‘the law’, and then to deny all accountability or transparency in the matter of exploring abuses of power is not only failing immigrants, but would constitute a massive failure of the freedoms and rights of all Finns.

      Not quite. It is racism if it discriminates against the foreigners. If every one is dealt with the same way then regardless of how cold, intolerant, impatient, or unbearable that might feel it is no racism.

      Okay, if you are going to parrot the same things again and again when in fact these points have been criticised and you have not bothered to take up those criticisms or respond, then this conversation will come to rather abrupt ending.

      None of those deal with actual family reunification. All that they is with fundamental human rights.

      lolololol. OH my giddy aunt! There is no response to this. You are stupid beyond all reasonableness. First, referring to fundamental human rights in the dismissive tone of ‘all that they is…’ betrays a lazy form of intellectual solipsim called ‘nothing buttery…’. It’s nothing but, and then fill in the basic fact, thereby seeming to provide a logical argument as to why that fact can subsequently be ignored in all its merits and meanings. Second, these laws have everything to do with reunification laws, as countries that are signaturies to these international human instruments are supposed to incorporate their content into their legislation and their decision-making. It’s that simple.

      Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights refers to right of having privacy. Not to right of having a family. As to the articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they refer to the right of having a family, they does not define it in any way.

      And that is why the European Parliament agreed on a definition. So, what you are saying is that you are happy that Finland would be ‘committed’ to respecting the right to family, just as long as ‘family’ is not actually defined, meaning of course that Finland does not then have to respect the right to family at all? tut tut.

      While reading those you still need keep in mind that family is usually identified as being parents (and possibly under aged children).

      Well, actually, interpretations tend to focus on the idea of ‘dependents’ rather than children per se, and this includes also elderly parents. Likewise, siblings are also seen as sharing a fundamental family bond that should be recognised and respected. The issue of course for family reunification is that you cannot let the tape unravel indefinitely as a great many people are related to any one individual if you allow all family bonds to be equal. This is clearly why governments have been reluctant to honour the concept and have struggled to find a way around its basic premise. The answer, as I suggested originally, I think lies in setting basic family ties to the ‘primary’ candidate for citizenship or asylum.

      All which is allowed by the Finnish law for family reunification – so no, I do not see there undermining of human rights.

      Considering you clearly know sweet fanny adams about this topic, I’ll take that comment with a pinch of salt. You clealry are seeing what you want to see, and actually are totally incapable of seeing anything else without embarking on a great deal of education.

      If she felt she was badly treated then she ought to (and really should) complain about it. However if she is making claims like it was ‘racist’ then she ought to really back such claims with something concrete – that is beyond of some one just giving a cold shoulder.

      Okay, that was actually a sensible statement, to which I agree.

      And there are legal channels for making the complaints

      Which may or may not be effective.

      Acting against the law only hurts your own cause regardless of how justified you might feel doing so.

      Agreed. Much like walking into a solid iron bar is likely to be painful – but the question is if someone put the iron bar right in front of a blind person and then gave that person a little shove from behind, then you might think that this was rather abusive, no?

      And one more final parrot about ‘the law’, I see.

      Okay, well, unless you bring new arguments or insight into your next reply, this will be my last reply to you Ohdake. I’m not going to go around the houses endlessly on this, especially when I can see that you are a bit green around the gills on these issues. Thanks for your contributions and good luck with that ‘the LAW’ mantra, I’m sure it will keep safe, even if it does make you sound rather ridiculous and one-dimensional!

  36. Brave

    Ohdake,
    U proud guy breaks yourself with ur cruel words.
    ….
    Yet calling the police was the only legal way to handle the issue if there was nothing the social workers could have done for the case and Dana still refused to leave the premises after being told to do so. Do note that even hindering the work of an official (like social worker) could be understood as being a legal infraction on its own.
    Ohdake,
    Are u a robot, with a program? Cant u see more than ur programs?
    Handle the issue, What handle?
    I was a client who went there with an appointment time, a person who trusted her hunters, her killers, i was not a drunker, or terrorist, or a man with a gun, i had not a knife, i did not broken anything,i had not soldiers with me, i had not a crowed, what i had with me was my words about my human rights….
    Handle… are u dreaming about a war_???? What kind of fight they wanted with a woman, a client of their own office… they had no reason to call to the police
    but they done so
    because
    they were racists
    fascists
    Cruels
    They wanted show me they have power on me and i should shut up and keep silent and tell them u r all perfect
    They could not
    they wont
    u cant Ohdake
    my idea u r a fearful person
    because
    a fearful person needs worship law
    Finnish law is against european law… that link Mark sent u on this blog
    and u again
    sit and claim after claim
    that
    crocodiles
    yellow crocodile system, is perfect ?
    No-one is perfect
    U r not perfect than me
    me, you and others are human beings
    some people have more opportunities in their life, some less
    some are lucky like many foreigners in here who have their family from 30 years , 20 years ago in here me is alone and struggling day by day and will do until THE END.
    UR cloths and shoes are not perfect if
    U dont believe go and check ur cloths and stuff
    what ake u to think that u see facts
    I am the only one who can see the facts in my situation because its me who is suffering
    its me who had force on her body, its me who saw her like a dead one in jail, its me who saw social workers in union against myself, its me who saw their racist faces clearly
    Oh legal_???? Just sit behind ur screen and play with some words and show yourself man of law, thats easy… u have no pain so u can do this game over and over
    game is easy for children
    u r a child
    a child can claim very well about his robotic polices, cars, and dolls
    huh huh
    nothing in Finland is legal for me even sitting on a chair with cross hands on my chest…
    Nothing is legal in Finland for me
    But
    Finland can kill me day by day and its legal?????
    Hey univers watch Finland
    THIS IS FINLAND

  37. Brave

    OH dake,
    Physical resistance to a police officer happens to be illegal. So I fail to see what exactly was so odd in the end result of the scuffle. That is she had every chance to leave the premises peacefully but instead chose not to. You could argue that is was ‘civil disobedience’ but that does not really matter, even in such a case it would have been going against the law
    ……….
    Against the law????
    Now monkeys laugh at you, now crocodiles are proud of you.
    Do u know exactly whats the mean of being civil?
    It is very important for me…
    Impolite racist polices should not touch my body not even a soft touch but they jumped on me like am a monster there and every body is on danger line sake of me…
    And then ur perfect court made a court against me because it was me who went to court and complained against racists…
    so court and law told me shut up, here is Finland… we know how to punish you, u dont know us? we will show u… they showed me that perfectly
    the only perfect thing that i see in Finland
    hey universe
    being civil has no mean for Finalnd

  38. Brave

    Police officers usually try to get things resolved by discussing the matter with the people involved. However if a police officer gives an order, it is not open to discussion

    Ohdake,
    How many times u worship ur police officers?
    Or yourself are a police officers and u try to defend yourself ?
    U just make noise with ur wooden claims
    Again u made monkeys laugh at u because u sit in the middle of jungle and speaking about jungle law

  39. Brave

    Ohdake u cant never ever understand that u r not the only creature on this planet earth who has a head, legs and hands with eyes and eyebrow…
    There are more.. but u r such a proud cant look at others… u just able to look at mirror because selfishness u have.
    …………
    Am living in Finland am not surprise
    People who thinks like u, are those who make a crocodile kingdom in Finland…
    and you are one of those soldiers who killed my parents behind the doors…. if not then u r one of those people who told bravo to them.

  40. Brave

    Ohdake now ur score is 100 for supporting cruel peoples and for u have enough wooden theories.
    But
    My question for u
    can u write
    10 sensitive sentences about whatever u want?
    ur second possibility
    can u write 10 sentences about human rights?
    I would like to give u more chance because u r a child…
    so
    write for us
    one of ur soft wish… explain it …explain it, describe it if u can
    …..
    Now go and write civil word in 10 papers…
    Example
    civil.civil.civil
    Civil.civil………..
    even u can write it here , for u have enough space to practice civil world
    Now go and say a hi for me to ur masters… a hi full of thorn… good luck if u can

  41. Brave

    Ohdake,
    For ur information
    Even u had a great opportunity on my blog to understand about racist law…
    …..
    I complain a lot
    I knocked a lot
    for more than a year… year and 3 months i complained

    To court
    To sosiaalimies asia
    To ombudsman
    To parliament
    Here and there, small and big… just heard….sorry thats not my job

    Even on net was trying a lot and all i got was nothing… i been completely alone me and me me plus me
    I am telling u and all people who are watching us on MT
    with a loud voice
    THAT
    All organization that are in Finland even those are working in the name of human rights are fake and in union with Finnish law, no/one supported me as a human being am, all ignored me and turned off their faces from me… because
    they could not see a person is standing for her rights after a terror she got on social welfare office from her social workers and polices.
    There are many people who live in the name of human rights but they just do a job for support Finnish law… they want a job..thats all.
    Yes
    am under a terror
    Finnish law terrored me
    U terroirist know very well that who are you… and i know u all very perfect
    Ur terrors on me been and is ur biggest crime and soon it will turn on yours and life.
    Be aware
    Finland be aware and you are a loser
    U could not kill me, am alive
    ALIVE

    • ohdake

      Just because you could not force your own will through the system does not mean that law would have been racist or that it would have been terrorizing you.

      If organizations are not supporting your point of view then perhaps you ought to examine what exactly you are after? There probably is a valid reason why they do not want to help you. You yourself implied that supporting you would have required people to break the law, which tends to be a rather tall demand to make. See below:

      There are many people who live in the name of human rights but they just do a job for support Finnish law…

      However if you deliberately choose to remain outside of society then there is very little that can be done. No one can be forcibly integrated if they deliberately choose to ostracize themselves from the society.

  42. ohdake

    Everyone’s decisons are made in the context of the law.

    I think misunderstood me. What I referred to was the legality side of Dana’s request for family reunification which I understood as having been the reason for the visit. Since her request went beyond what was allowed by the Finnish law (recommendations of EP do not affect that) then the social services had nothing to give or do.

    Once again, you have failed to name the actual law they would have been broken if they had not called the police.

    None, but neither did they broke any laws by calling in the police.

    Simply repeating this does not make it true. How do you personally know there was nothing else that could be done? Why are you ignoring the suggestions being made for alternative courses of action? Why did the head of the unit write to Dana to apologise for the way she was treated, if there was nothing that could have been done differently?

    I do not know that – however neither do you. Since there is no information what exactly transpired in Dana’s visit it is impossible for me, or for you, to state that any alternative solutions would have been available. No one wanted the issue to become a criminal issue which seems (I can’t remember seeing what exactly was apologized) to be reason for the apology. Still nothing indicates that it would have been related to racism.

    At the same time, the police should also have sensitivity training to understand that Muslim women may react differently to being ‘handled’, and that it signifies a far bigger ‘crisis’ than it might to a Westerner.

    I understand the equal treatment – that is no racism. There are these things known as equality and gender equality. Religion is hardly a reason for special treatment by the police. It all comes down to the fact that Dana refused to vacate the premises.

    It should not have come to that.

    You are not going to get treated with cake and coffee by disobeying given orders or protesting inside the social offices.

    The situation is that should Dana’s behaviour be ‘criminalised’, or should there be a more coherant and thought-out response that avoids that kind of escalation? The answer is really quite clear – it was unnecessary.

    The way it was told indicates the more thought-out responses did not work. She was asked to vacate the premises. Since the social offices have no legal methods to remove people from the premises other than calling the police I really honestly fail to see what they could have done differently. Especially if what Dana wanted was beyond what the social offices could legally provide.

    But I think she also has the rigth to protest and to receive a better quality of service that doesn’t immediately seek to criminalise here when she disagrees with a decision or decides to sit in a chair in the corridor by way of protest.

    That she has, but right to protest and to receive better quality of service does not allow for disobeying orders issued by officials. If the officials tell her to vacate the premises then she needs to do so regardless of that right. However if you choose to disobey the law despite that you are (rightfully) protesting you still need to face the consequences.

    Actually, there was specific reference in the document to the numbered reference for the Recommendation in question. Likewise, there was also a summary of the family unit definition. Stop your moaning and do some research.

    But those do not matter since the definition from the Finnish legislation takes precedence. For brief and concise version, see the shortened notes on the pages of the Finnish Immigration Services (migri.fi). So perhaps you ought to stop your moaning and start to reading, since you seem to have been unable to locate even that information. Then you could start researching the matter.

    It is simply naive to think that politics or policy in Finland is just about ‘the law’.

    Yet the Finnish Immigration Services disagrees with your personal deduction of it. And I doubt very much that you would know more about the matter than what they do.

    Simply demanding that immigrants understand ‘the law’, and then to deny all accountability or transparency in the matter of exploring abuses of power is not only failing immigrants, but would constitute a massive failure of the freedoms and rights of all Finns.

    Quite a bit wrong. Way I see it is that law provides the frameworks within which the services (and even immigrants) need to operate. That does not remove or reduce accountability or transparency. It merely sets the boundaries. Going over the set boundaries, regardless of motivation or perceived justification, is not exactly the best of ideas.

    Second, these laws have everything to do with reunification laws, as countries that are signaturies to these international human instruments are supposed to incorporate their content into their legislation and their decision-making.

    Which is AFAIK exactly what the Finland has done. Just because the definition of a family group differs from the one you desire it to be does not mean that the definition would not exist.

    And that is why the European Parliament agreed on a definition.

    So far EP has agreed on a recommandation for a definition, not on actual definition. Might not seem important to you but one means that it is only a suggestion which can be ignored while the other would mean that it should be integrated into legislation.

    Well, actually, interpretations tend to focus on the idea of ‘dependents’ rather than children per se, and this includes also elderly parents. Likewise, siblings are also seen as sharing a fundamental family bond that should be recognised and respected.

    Yet we are in Finland and the matter should be considered from the existing legislations point of view. Pulling out some other interpretation than the currently existing one does not help the matter at all.

    Considering you clearly know sweet fanny adams about this topic, I’ll take that comment with a pinch of salt. You clealry are seeing what you want to see, and actually are totally incapable of seeing anything else without embarking on a great deal of education.

    Right, because if I knew anything about the topic I would be required agree 100% with your point of view? It appears you hold yourself of a pedastal on this matter since disagreeing with you seems to be out of the question.

    Agreed. Much like walking into a solid iron bar is likely to be painful – but the question is if someone put the iron bar right in front of a blind person and then gave that person a little shove from behind, then you might think that this was rather abusive, no?

    Given that Dana had every chance of walking away without any consequences she wasn’t a blind person shoved to and iron bar – she just chose not to look where she was going. In which case it is not abusive in any manner.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      I think misunderstood me. What I referred to was the legality side of Dana’s request for family reunification which I understood as having been the reason for the visit.

      Incorrect. The visit related to payments, a matter that had already been resolved in the sense that Dana followed the instructions given to her, but which she did not understand and did not originally get an explanation for. As someone that has also been at the mercy of these kinds of situations when I first arrived in Finland and was working part-time, sharing child-care responsibilities for a baby, and claiming some benefits, I know just how difficult the situation can be to understand and get clarity over. After six months complaining about one decision, we finally got it overturned. The system is far from perfect.

      Since her request went beyond what was allowed by the Finnish law (recommendations of EP do not affect that) then the social services had nothing to give or do.

      I guess it is not easy to discuss a case when the actual facts of the case are vague. But I’m not at liberty to discuss all the details as it is for Dana to decide what she wants to share. My apologies for the vagueness.

      None, but neither did they broke any laws by calling in the police.

      No, but they escalated the problem. That much at least should be clear to you. Both parties in a dispute must take responsibility for their actions. They first threatened to call the police and then called the police. The threat in itself was the wrong response in my view, as this is a humiliating response to someone who is arguing over details with the staff. It is like being treated like a criminal for arguing or not understanding or failing to get an adequate explanation. The authorities are not always very forthcoming or clear when it comes to explaining or justifying their decisions. Talk about ‘laws’ actually doesn’t help in exlaining the ‘justifications’ for decisions, which is what many people want to hear.

      I do not know that – however neither do you.

      A point I accepted and brought up early in the discussion, Ohdake. At the very least, your claim that it isn’t racism is on the same level of Dana’s claim that it is racism. Moreover, as a great deal of racism cannot be proved, but can certainly be felt, a very cautious approach is needed to investigate and discuss the various dimensions of discrimination. That is the value of discussing these things on Migrant Tales as far as I can see. It is not about ‘deciding’ the issue, for me, but about opening up the debate AND showing some compassion to Dana for her difficulties.

      Dana has her opinion, which she is entitled to, and you have yours, which you are equally entitled too – and the reality is that this particular matter will not be decided here. But what we can do is explore the circumstances and discuss the various elements that have contributed to Dana’s experience and discuss where discrimination can be understood to operate and to discuss measures to safeguard the rights of immigrants to live without such discrimination.

      No one wanted the issue to become a criminal issue which seems (I can’t remember seeing what exactly was apologized) to be reason for the apology.

      If you accept you do not know exactly the circumstances, why is your default position to ‘imagine’ only those circumstances that would seem to deny any 1) lack of service, 2) lack of respect for the ‘specialised’ needs of an immigrant/refugee, and 3) different thresholds for foreigners for escalating problems by the social, police and prosecution systems?

      Religion is hardly a reason for special treatment by the police.

      Religion was not mentioned. Issues such as ‘body space’ and handling of women are more culture-specific than religion-specific.

      It all comes down to the fact that Dana refused to vacate the premises.

      That is one fact, and an important one. But it is far from being the ‘be ALL and end ALL’ of this situation. Such use of the word ‘ALL’ is absolutist and clearly counter-productive. It turns a blind eye to the opportunities to improve our understanding. The key question is about ‘thresholds’ for deciding when to treat Dana as a ‘potential criminal’ for protesting about her treatment. The other fact is whether other alternatives were explored.

      You are not going to get treated with cake and coffee by disobeying given orders or protesting inside the social offices.

      No, if you disagree with the social staff and insist on better service while ‘waiting’ for this in a chair in the corridor, you are going to have the police called to physically remove you, if necessary, arresting you AND prosecuting you. If she was making a lot of noise, being abusive to the staff, then yes, I can see that they would have called ‘the guard’. But not the police. That should only be a last resort. In this situation, it appears to have been almost the first resort.

      The way it was told indicates the more thought-out responses did not work.

      This is the heart of the problem right here. I’m sure the people involved thought they were doing everything THEY could and should, but the one thing they were not doing is LISTENING to their client in a respectful way. Isn’t it funny how I am able to discuss this matter, both publicly and privately, with Dana and have no problem whatsoever in maintaining respect and in getting closer to her own concerns. Dana feels supported, even though I cannot personally change the decisions that have been made or even explain them. This may have been the case too for the staff at the social office, but they could have supported her better. She is a reasonable person and understands when someone genuinely shows concern for her. Of course, if the staff have merely taken the high-handed approach of stating, much like you ‘that is the law’, then clearly, there is no support and in fact no respect.

      Clients are persons first. When you treat clients like they are the ‘objects’ of decisions, that is a failure of the service, no matter how ‘true’ that is at the cold-blooded level of the ‘administrative’ reality. That is only part of the service being provided. The other part is the human part. When you specifically dehumanise the service in this way, objectify clients, and in the case of immigrants, fail to take account of the lack of shared ‘tacit’ knowledge about the system and how this creates special vulnerabilities, then you are practicing a form of racism. That’s a ‘thought-out’ response, Ohdake. And in this situation, it doesn’t require that we definitively decide that Dana’s case WAS racism. That is something we cannot decide, as far as I can see. But we can consider it ‘as if it was’, and look to see what could be learned. That is the sensible option. Every time. And that, ultimately is the only sensible, sensitive and realistic way that we, as a society, will tackle all forms of discrimination.

      That she has, but right to protest and to receive better quality of service does not allow for disobeying orders issued by officials.

      Like I have already said, it may not be clear to a foreigner what constitutes an ‘order’ and what room there is to refuse without one’s subsequent behaviour being ‘criminalised’. You seem to accept and know that in Finland that is not possible. In other countries, it is possible to protest. The police may then explain in detail the situation. They may explain what possible consequences would occur. Or, they could take the strong-arm approach and simply impose their ‘legally protected right’ to take control of the situation. Of course, there is no comeback on them if they do that, but that doesn’t mean that the decision is not open to criticism. We don’t have to wait for an action to be illegal before we can criticise it and call for better practice.

      If the officials tell her to vacate the premises then she needs to do so regardless of that right. However if you choose to disobey the law despite that you are (rightfully) protesting you still need to face the consequences.

      All stated with the benefit of hindsight.

      But those do not matter since the definition from the Finnish legislation takes precedence.

      Your approach to this whole argument is bloody tiresome, Ohdake. You seem to state, over and over, that as long as that is ‘the law’ (or interpretation of the situation), then there is no arguing with it, and all ‘alternatives’ “do not matter“. They do matter. It’s called social debate. Ideas, practices, policies and interpretations are all open to criticism.

      For brief and concise version, see the shortened notes on the pages of the Finnish Immigration Services (migri.fi). So perhaps you ought to stop your moaning and start to reading, since you seem to have been unable to locate even that information. Then you could start researching the matter.

      Yes, be cheeky. I was the one that brought these differing defintions to YOUR attention. The migri pages illustrate exactly the problem I have ALREADY described and does not add anything to what was already pointed out (bold added):

      The sphere of family members is laid down by law and does not necessarily correspond to general views on what constitutes a family member. The Finnish concept of family is narrower than that of many other countries.

      The family members of Finnish citizens and of non-EU (third country) citizens and comparable persons are:

      spouse
      registered partner
      cohabiting partner
      guardian of a child under 18 years of age
      child
      A broader definition is applicable for family members of EU citizens.

      As you can see, this definition takes in spouse/partner and young dependents, but does not take account of older dependents or siblings. In the case of EU citizens, the law MUST take account of older dependents too. This sets up a ‘two-tier’ system of rights where immigrants have LESS rights. Of course, the notion of ‘dependents’ is notoriously difficult to pin down too, because if a child of elderly parents resides legally in an EU country and they remain in their native country, then they are ‘surviving’ without the child and do not have to be considered as ‘dependent’ on the care of that child. This, however, clearly goes against the spirit of the various human rights instruments already mentioned, whose starting point is not the relationship of ‘dependence’, but the fundamental right to have a ‘family life’. The simple fact is than a parent who is also an EU citizen does not have to rely on their child as a sponsor for them to decide to move to another EU country in order to be closer to them. Their ‘right to family’ in this instance doesn’t need any special legal protection, unlike the family rights of immigrants.

      Of course, countries will not fully respect these human rights in an era where ‘immigration’ causes such heated debate and sense of grievance among the native population, but then again, don’t lets bullshit ourselves that we are fully respecting these people’s ‘human rights’, or that they enjoy the same rights as natives, when clearly they do not.

      Yet the Finnish Immigration Services disagrees with your personal deduction of it. And I doubt very much that you would know more about the matter than what they do.

      Gosh, how arrogant, once again. I’m sure the Finnish services know how to implement their own policies and ‘law’, but I’m also sure that this is not the end of the matter or discussion, by any stretch. It does not end with the law, hence the EU parliament’s complaint about how individual countries are tightening their own immigration laws in a way that is counter to the spirit of human rights covenents and also the expressed will of the EU parliament.

      My point was not specifically about the existence of the ‘law’, my point was that the Finnish law fails to adequately protect the right to family of immigrants, a right that is for most purposes protected already for most Finnish citizens and therefore doesn’t even need to be defended by legal instruments. My point was also that policy, guidelines and other documents are equally important in setting out the conditions in which these issues are understood, interpreted and discussed. This argument with you illustrates

      Way I see it is that law provides the frameworks within which the services (and even immigrants) need to operate. That does not remove or reduce accountability or transparency.

      That’s because in themselves the law has nothing to do with accountability or transparency. These issues arise in looking at instances of how the law comes into effect. If someone hold a gun to your head and tells you to break a window of your neighbours house, then clearly the need to prosecute has to take into account how the law came to be broken, if only to mitigate the situation. Likewise, Dana is presumed to have broken the law only when she resisted being handled.

      Which is AFAIK exactly what the Finland has done. Just because the definition of a family group differs from the one you desire it to be does not mean that the definition would not exist.

      Who said the definition didn’t exist? The point was that it differs from EU guidelines, and clearly it differs for EU and non-EU citizens. 2nd class citizenship, anyone?

      So far EP has agreed on a recommandation for a definition, not on actual definition. Semantics, Ohdake. If the EP agrees to recommend a definition, then that definition is agreed. What remains is for national governments to accept the EP mandate of their own politicians and to implement that definition.

      Might not seem important to you but one means that it is only a suggestion which can be ignored while the other would mean that it should be integrated into legislation.

      Ignoring issues relating to the rights of immigrants is something that many politicians in Europe seem to be quite good at.

      Yet we are in Finland and the matter should be considered from the existing legislations point of view. Pulling out some other interpretation than the currently existing one does not help the matter at all.

      This isn’t exclusively a discussion about existing legislation, Ohdake. Part of my intention is to show the inconsistencies in the Finnish position in regard to the EU and to agreed-upon human rights instruments.

      Right, because if I knew anything about the topic I would be required agree 100% with your point of view? It appears you hold yourself of a pedastal on this matter since disagreeing with you seems to be out of the question.

      Because of course someone telling you that you do not know what you are talking about must think like this, mustn’t they? There is an alternative – the weakness of your analasis, your failure to acknowledge familiar upon points of discussion, your willingness to continually play ‘nothing buttery’ with immigrants’ rights tells me very clearly that you are making it up as you go along. You have one position thus far, about the sanctity of ‘the Law’, which you assume is above criticism and completely devoid of any discrimination, and you argue solely from this position with no regard to the well-established issues and debates that are far more relevant to this discussion of Dana’s concerns than the matter of ‘the Law’. But I guess you think this is your strongest ‘defence’, that Dana broke the law, and any concession to her or the issues that her case brings up should be resisted at all costs.

      One of the key pillars in tackling racism in a country like Finland is properly opening up the debate. It is exactly tactics like your own to stonewall and remove all space for discussion that get in the way of Finland truly pushing forward on this issue.

      Given that Dana had every chance of walking away without any consequences she wasn’t a blind person shoved to and iron bar – she just chose not to look where she was going. In which case it is not abusive in any manner.

      There is such a strong element of ‘absolutist’ thinking in many of your positions, and this is no different. Simply stating that she had ‘every’ chance of walking away doesn’t make it true. The fact is that tacit knowledge about how the police system functions here in Finland would have given her at least one clear ‘chance’ to walk away before things became problematic. But who in this situation was actually working to give that tacit knowledge to Dana? The staff, by calling the police immediately turned the situation into a confrontation, it did not give her that knowledge that this is a situation that can result in significant harm to her. Were they not surprised that their ‘threat’ to call the police had no effect? Did this not give them an idea that Dana did not realise the seriousness of continuing to protest in the way she did? What is the assumption that tells them that ‘control’ is the solution here rather than support or even education? I’m afraid until you answer this question of mine, I will say that your showing both ignorance and probably a high degree of racism yourself. There is no reason to not take these questions seriously!!!! They are very straightforward and natural questions and they assume NOTHING about racism or otherwise.

  43. Brave

    Ohdake,
    Just because you could not force your own will through the system does not mean that law would have been racist or that it would have been terrorizing you…………..

    SO Ohdake,
    Why talking about fact make you so sad?
    I have open eyes and i see Finland under a mask has on face.
    I know all facts in this country.
    All moments i was suffering in here and when i lost my both parents, ur ministers, government, system, law, organizations… were on the beach and were drinking my blood with a fake smile on face.
    Yes terror u heard it right, Finnish law terrored me and now you are shock about my words? Because you thought u r the only one has brain…
    Finnish law terrored me with fingers of some humans that are working for it…
    so now
    think what am talking about…
    I know my words are heavy for you Ohdake, this social and law… thats why system hates me, thats why u hate me ohdake u r jealous, you plus them.

    So Ohdake
    Now tell me
    Who forced its will, me or ur system and law?
    and what does mean force for you?
    Is that a good thing ur idea???
    Do u believe that law can forced whatever wants on me, its will is okay for u? and do u think that law has right to spray its will on me? U forget am alive and very intelligent , who can see whats good for her and whats against her… so i wont a power on my life… i am master of my destiny but ur system and law attacked on my destiny, broke it and terrorized me.
    And that’s why u accept all terror i got from law and system in here yes?
    So u accept terrorists?
    Again and again am not surprise, am living in Finland

  44. Brave

    You are not going to get treated with cake and coffee by disobeying given orders or protesting inside the social offices.

    Oh and u r not going to get a praise after you terrorizing me.
    u r not going to get a thanks and well done after u terrorizing me.
    U r not going to get a hug after u terrorizing me
    U R not going to get a bunch of flowers after u terrorizing me.
    U R not going to get my smile after u terrorizing me.
    U r not going to get my silent after u terrorizing me
    and finally
    U r not going to get my gave up after u terrorising me but my stand up again and again and for always.
    And about u Ohdake
    U Ohdake… u r not going to get my trust and respect after u supporting my terrorists and racist law who broke my destiny… NO NO be aware Ohdake. am not joking with my time on MT and with you… am serious than what even u can imagine about
    Now u can see me better

  45. Brave

    Given that Dana had every chance of walking away without any consequences she wasn’t a blind person shoved to and iron bar – she just chose not to look where she was going. In which case it is not abusive in any manner.

    Manner?Oh okay now tell me what u know about manner? How u yourself treat a woman?
    OH Manner? Manner? easy to write but so hard to keep it in right way.
    I chose to sit down on a chair because i was feeding up of those racists manner….because i knew them very well in the past…
    MY Manner was civil, polite and completely my right… how long should i wait with racists social worker and system and telling them hei…
    And Their manner was terror
    Now do u got it ohdake that whats the mean of manner
    I am a civil person for me attack and racist games are empty and wild.
    I wont accept any wild person and law in my life.
    I do not believe to attack and ignoring but to talking
    Manner?
    Now tell me about ur personally manners ohdake
    For ur manner is okay two polices attack a woman and others watch them like they watch a movie?
    What do u know about insult?
    What do u know about a woman private space?
    Just tell me u don’t respect me as a woman in Finland.
    Don’t run like a child, stay and be a man
    and tell us about ur specially manners… Tell
    tell
    more and more
    Now u r a lawyer of them on MT…

  46. Brave

    Ohdake,
    All ur comments about me are belongs to a program that u got in yours not in one day but in ur whole life and step by step
    So
    I do not judge you
    But
    there is a time
    that we should answer to ourselves
    then
    in that time
    it is you
    who stands against you
    because
    u should not
    put ur finger
    against
    fact and ur heart know all about fact

  47. Brave

    Ohdake for u and those Finns and foreigners who thinks like you about me,

    I am telling this so brave and with my whole spirit voice
    What happened to me in social welfare service was completely racist, racist act
    because
    social workers had not reason to call police
    Police had not reason to attack me, twisting my arms, and insulting me in front of others in daytime in there and outside in street.
    Because court and Finnish law has not reason to stand for police and ignoring my complaints
    because jail had not right to accept me when there was mention a comic words on police report against me
    Because jail had not right to take my photo and fingerprint and make me a black case
    because social service had not right to show me their power, and had no right to leave me between two polices and had no right to let me be alone in jail, and had no right to leave me alone after what happened to me.
    because court had no right to play with me for a year
    because police office had not right to ask me for a small private court and asking me questions
    Because ur favour parliament had no right to play with me power game and took all copies they wanted and then quickly send me back all copies and told me thats not my job
    Because ombudsman had no right to play game with me.,.. took all copies and complains and sent me back so quickly and telling me that’s not their job
    Because social welfare service had no right to send me to court without a lawyer
    Because court had no right to make a court against me who had no lawyer
    Because my first lawyer had no right to close my case for police benefits
    Because you ohdake and one by one persons foreigner or Finn who thinks like you has no right to tell me shut up
    Whats ur reasons to telling me shut up in real and on net, some with silent and some with words??? some directly and some indirectly???
    I am telling you
    for am not thinking like u, for i don’t see like u, for i am different, for i am strange in your eyes, for i am not belong to group and groups games, for am free, for u can’t close my wings.
    Being different in mind does not make me sinful, you can not argue with GOD, GOD made me like this, bravo to great powerful GOD.
    Yes
    My long wings will save me
    Thank you GOD for these long strong wings.
    LOVE u GOD soooooo much

  48. ohdake

    The system is far from perfect.

    I can’t remember any one claiming that it would be perfect. However your (or rather Dana’s) claim was that the system (i.e. law) would have been racist.

    My apologies for the vagueness.

    It is understandable, privacy should be maintained.

    The threat in itself was the wrong response in my view, as this is a humiliating response to someone who is arguing over details with the staff. It is like being treated like a criminal for arguing or not understanding or failing to get an adequate explanation.

    Not quite. While the demand to get adequate explanation is understandable the officials already made it clear that they would not be discussing the matter at that time. Pressing a matter (in Finland) tends to result only in angering people. That however has nothing to do with racism.

    Moreover, as a great deal of racism cannot be proved, but can certainly be felt, a very cautious approach is needed to investigate and discuss the various dimensions of discrimination.

    Only problem with that claim is that it assumes that anything felt offending is understood as racism or discrimination. Neither appears to have been true in the case mentioned.

    If you accept you do not know exactly the circumstances, why is your default position to ‘imagine’ only those circumstances that would seem to deny any 1) lack of service, 2) lack of respect for the ‘specialised’ needs of an immigrant/refugee, and 3) different thresholds for foreigners for escalating problems by the social, police and prosecution systems?

    Mainly because there has not been presented any evidence to contrary. Unless there is something more solid than wild claims and unfounded accusations I see very little reason to understand the matter differently. While I understand that Dana might have felt offended by the handling the issue was if that handling was racist or not.

    Religion was not mentioned. Issues such as ‘body space’ and handling of women are more culture-specific than religion-specific.

    Yet she was in Finland and you can not expect the police to adjust their methods according to the cultural background of the person they are dealing with. If you would you would be demanding that the police would need to perform ethnic profiling (which in itself is commonly understood as racism). While the handling may not have been what Dana expected that does not appear to have been racist. In other words the same methods which are applied to native Finns are applied to others.

    The key question is about ‘thresholds’ for deciding when to treat Dana as a ‘potential criminal’ for protesting about her treatment. The other fact is whether other alternatives were explored.

    Given that you yourself stated that the officials told her that they would call the police if she didn’t vacate the premises it does appear that other alternatives were ‘explored’.

    No, if you disagree with the social staff and insist on better service while ‘waiting’ for this in a chair in the corridor, you are going to have the police called to physically remove you, if necessary, arresting you AND prosecuting you. If she was making a lot of noise, being abusive to the staff, then yes, I can see that they would have called ‘the guard’. But not the police.

    Actually they may call the police. If you hinder the work of officials you are violating one of the Finnish laws. See for example:
    http://www.laki24.fi/riri-rikokset-rikokset_viranomaisia_vastaan-haitanteko_virkamiehelle.html
    Point is that if you protest inside the offices and hinder the officials you could as such be considered to be violating the Finnish law. Furthermore ‘guards’ do not usually have rights to actually remove people from premises, they also call the police if they are unable to resolve the situation within the powers granted to them.

    This may have been the case too for the staff at the social office, but they could have supported her better. She is a reasonable person and understands when someone genuinely shows concern for her. Of course, if the staff have merely taken the high-handed approach of stating, much like you ‘that is the law’, then clearly, there is no support and in fact no respect.

    Which is all besides the point of the whole discussion. The discussion was if the law and social offices were racist as claimed by Dana. I never stated that the system would have been perfect or that the officials might not have been hard or unyielding. Neither of those things means that system or the law would be racist.

    In other countries, it is possible to protest. The police may then explain in detail the situation. They may explain what possible consequences would occur. Or, they could take the strong-arm approach and simply impose their ‘legally protected right’ to take control of the situation. Of course, there is no comeback on them if they do that, but that doesn’t mean that the decision is not open to criticism.

    Yet the whole incident took place in Finland so that is against which it should be compared against. Not against Iranian standards.

    Your approach to this whole argument is bloody tiresome, Ohdake. You seem to state, over and over, that as long as that is ‘the law’ (or interpretation of the situation), then there is no arguing with it, and all ‘alternatives’ “do not matter“.

    Quite a bit wrong. I only stated that you can not change anything or even argue against something when ordered to leave by the police. There are other (valid) routes via which handling of matters such as these should be done. Getting into an argument with a police officer is not one of those.

    Yes, be cheeky.

    I only followed the tone of discussion you yourself set. If you do not like it then perhaps you ought to watch your tone more carefully. As they say you reap what you sow.

    As you can see, this definition takes in spouse/partner and young dependents, but does not take account of older dependents or siblings. In the case of EU citizens, the law MUST take account of older dependents too.

    Not quite. The broader policy applies only in case of EU citizens that are not Finns. In that sense Finns themselves are discriminated against in Finland.

    That’s because in themselves the law has nothing to do with accountability or transparency. These issues arise in looking at instances of how the law comes into effect. If someone hold a gun to your head and tells you to break a window of your neighbours house, then clearly the need to prosecute has to take into account how the law came to be broken, if only to mitigate the situation. Likewise, Dana is presumed to have broken the law only when she resisted being handled.

    Problem with your parallel is that the person handling her was a police officer. Not a criminal but an official. There is no mitigation from the resistance made against police officers – actually quite the contrary.

    So far EP has agreed on a recommandation for a definition, not on actual definition. Semantics, Ohdake.

    Far from it. If it would be something that is actually agreed in EP then it would be entered to member states’ legislation via directives or their equivalents. Recommendation is just that, only a recommendation, not an actual definition or directive.

    Part of my intention is to show the inconsistencies in the Finnish position in regard to the EU and to agreed-upon human rights instruments.

    Except like you showed before EU has no official policy in the matter – recommendation perhaps, but not a policy.

    One of the key pillars in tackling racism in a country like Finland is properly opening up the debate. It is exactly tactics like your own to stonewall and remove all space for discussion that get in the way of Finland truly pushing forward on this issue.

    Wrong as usual. What I stonewall are the wild & unfounded claims made in the name of racism. Not the discussion of the topic. Neither can you have such a discussion if you go against the legislation. There are other avenues for handling the matters.

    • Mark

      Ohdake

      I can’t remember any one claiming that it would be perfect. However your (or rather Dana’s) claim was that the system (i.e. law) would have been racist.

      Not my claim. And the question of racism certainly doesn’t begin and end with ‘the law’. The law itself could be racist or its implementation, or its lack of implementation. Actually, I’m assuming by law that Dana refers to the entire justice system, from the decision to report to the police as a ‘police matter’, to the arrest, to the prosecution.

      Not quite. While the demand to get adequate explanation is understandable the officials already made it clear that they would not be discussing the matter at that time. Pressing a matter (in Finland) tends to result only in angering people. That however has nothing to do with racism.

      How did you arrive at this conclusion?

      Only problem with that claim is that it assumes that anything felt offending is understood as racism or discrimination. Neither appears to have been true in the case mentioned.

      How can you take a point about the difficulty of proving racism and necessary caution and investigation and make it into a point about assuming all claims of racism are true?

      Mainly because there has not been presented any evidence to contrary.

      Evidence? God knows what you mean by that. However, lack of service appears to have been demonstrated in the clear fact the client felt disrespected and was not supported. The fact that they called the police suggests they were unable to deal appropriately with immigrants/refugees, while the various decisions to prosecute Dana likewise suggest that this situation was overblown and the ‘strong arm’ of the law was totally unnecessary. Therefore, each of the possible accusations of failings can be supported by actual outcomes. If you prefer to see those outcomes as utterly determined and appropriate, then that is a subjective decision and interpretation and it itself does not constitute ‘evidence’ that these things were not failings. You cannot have your cake and eat it, Ohdake, accepting uncertainty and them claiming certainty.

      Yet she was in Finland and you can not expect the police to adjust their methods according to the cultural background of the person they are dealing with. If you would you would be demanding that the police would need to perform ethnic profiling

      No, ethnic profiling is assuming guilt or suspicion of a crime on the basis of appearance or ethnicity. Taking account of the specific characteristics of a person they are supposed to be advising on their rights and also their obligations (where public disorder offences are concerned, this can be a very grey area that requires explanation) is just common sense. Like I said, if the whole of Finland chooses to ignore the specific needs or lack of tacit knowledge of refugees but then criminalises them in situations that are totally avoidable with some common sense, then I would say Finland is being hugely discriminatory towards immigrants.

      Given that you yourself stated that the officials told her that they would call the police if she didn’t vacate the premises it does appear that other alternatives were ‘explored’.

      Hardly. That in itself was an escalation, a threat. I would hardly call that ‘exploring alternatives’.

      Actually they may call the police. If you hinder the work of officials you are violating one of the Finnish laws.

      Sitting in a chair in the corrider is hindering their work how, exactly?

      Furthermore ‘guards’ do not usually have rights to actually remove people from premises, they also call the police if they are unable to resolve the situation within the powers granted to them.

      And who said the guard should have removed her? The issue is that Dana was to be made aware of just how serious the consequences could be. Perhaps the guard could have communicated this, as this appears to have been turned into a ‘security’ issue by the staff.

      Which is all besides the point of the whole discussion. The discussion was if the law and social offices were racist as claimed by Dana.

      That is the discussion you want to have – a very narrow discussion that dismisses or reduces this situation to a handful of variables that completely absolves any of the official parties from actually critically evaluating their own behaviour, but which rather places the entire responsibility for all actions and all consequences on Dana. Common sense should tell you that in this situation, responsibility for various outcomes are shared between all the parties involved.

      I never stated that the system would have been perfect or that the officials might not have been hard or unyielding. Neither of those things means that system or the law would be racist.

      And yet racism is a perfectly understandable consideration given that Dana is an immigrant and various assumptions have been made about how ‘immigrants’ are expected to behave. Likewise, the outcome is that an immigrant has gone for ‘help’ and ended up instead with a criminal record. Something seriously went wrong. If it comes down to Finns not being prepared to adapt and even to educate foreigners about their system, then, yes, that is in effect racism, in the sense of treating people of different ethnicity and culture as ‘less’ than Finns, as ‘undeserving’ of tolerance and even of education.

      There are other (valid) routes via which handling of matters such as these should be done. Getting into an argument with a police officer is not one of those.

      Okay, and why are these routes only open to Dana and not to the Social staff?

      Not quite. The broader policy applies only in case of EU citizens that are not Finns. In that sense Finns themselves are discriminated against in Finland.

      Care to explain how Finns are discriminated against in Finland by a law that provides rights to EU citizens? Moreover, it’s funny how when it comes to possibilities for discrimination AGAINST Finns, you are right on the button, quick as a whistle to see exactly what the possibilities are. When it comes to immigrants, you close your eyes to all discussion of the problems of racism or even possibilities. You seem not to see the benefit in treating claims of racism ‘as if true’ so as to make the system more robust in securing against racism, which in itself is very good reason to take claims of racism seriously regardless of whether it is absolutely clear or not whether racism was a key factor.

      Problem with your parallel is that the person handling her was a police officer. Not a criminal but an official. There is no mitigation from the resistance made against police officers – actually quite the contrary.

      You seem to miss the point, again. A crime in this situation was only possible through the escalation of the circumstances by all of the officials involved. Up until Dana resisted the police officer’s rough handling, she had not committed a crime. Therefore the decision to involve the police and for the police themselves to decide that removing her in the way they did were in themselves key factors in Dana ‘breaking the law’. This doesn’t make her actions any the less illegal, but it does clearly illustrate that the ‘escalation’ of the situation into one where a crime was committed was in part the result of the heavy handed approach of the officials.

      Far from it. If it would be something that is actually agreed in EP then it would be entered to member states’ legislation via directives or their equivalents. Recommendation is just that, only a recommendation, not an actual definition or directive.

      ??? The parliament voted on the ‘recommendation’ and it was passed. This ‘open method’ of shaping and steering national policy to fit to commonly agreed principles at the EU level is just the way that things are done more often than not, and to some extent it avoids the problem of not being able to agree any kind of response. At least the principles were established through agreement, even if national parliaments want to decide exactly how to implement those principles. However, to then go back to one’s own national context and to contradict those agreed principles, while clearly is playing politics, it is nevertheless not in the spirit of how the EU parliament operates through this open method of co-ordination.

      Except like you showed before EU has no official policy in the matter – recommendation perhaps, but not a policy.

      Ohdake – you are clueless about how EU politics works. A recommendation cannot be made WITHOUT a policy. The recommendation embodies the agreed upon policy; namely, it details the actors, the issues, the relevant activities and processes that would be affected by that policy or that that policy would like to affect. Policy is not IMPLEMENTATION, but just because there is no implementation by means of national legislation does not mean there is no policy or no framework for influence. That argument is worse than a joke, mate!

      Wrong as usual. What I stonewall are the wild & unfounded claims made in the name of racism. Not the discussion of the topic. Neither can you have such a discussion if you go against the legislation. There are other avenues for handling the matters.

      Your assumption that these claims are ‘wild’ and unfounded is exactly that, an assumption. Moreover, you cannot have a discussion of racism unless you take the claims to racism seriously and operate to reduce the possibilities for racism based on those claims, whether true or not. If someone says there’s a crack in the bridge foundation, and your first inspection says you yourself cannot see it, it would be foolish to then say ‘there is no crack’ and nothing needs to be done to protect the bridge users in case there was a crack. At the very least, you would instigate a regular inspection of the bridge as well as a thorough overview of all inspection criteria and schedules.

      This is not merely a matter of whether a law was racist or not, even if that is Dana’s claim. Dana’s claim is only part of this issue and our response should take account of our full understanding of how racism works and not merely the claims or experiences of Dana in this particular situation. Your eagerness to individualise the problems of racism by merely attacking Dana’s own testimony and your failure to respond from the fuller perspective of what we know about how racism DOES work illustrates the problem very well.

  49. Brave

    Yet she was in Finland and you can not expect the police to adjust their methods according to the cultural background of the person they are dealing with. If you would you would be demanding that the police would need to perform ethnic profiling (which in itself is commonly understood as racism). While the handling may not have been what Dana expected that does not appear to have been racist. In other words the same methods which are applied to native Finns are applied to others.
    ………..
    Ohdake,
    Why u support them? Cant u change the crime they done against me? Can u clean them from this crime? NO so u just make tired yourself.
    There was no need for police.
    Police had no right to attack me, because i been silent on a chair.
    police had no reason to jump on me and press my body with force and hate.
    So they could not do this to a Finn because they knew they should answer to law… but they were sure that Finnish law wont ask them why they done that if they do that to me secondly they were sure Finnish law will support them as well if they do so… so they attacked me and Finnish law supported them perfectly.
    They attacked me with a great freedom in themselves… they insulted me so perfectly and they did not try to Finnish their cruel war against me a woman who was suffering from pain and insult and who had her hands tight in handcuffs… they could leave me go after this scandal in the street but instead they push me in their jail acr and made me a criminal case.

  50. Brave

    Actually they may call the police. If you hinder the work of officials you are violating one of the Finnish laws. See for example:
    http://www.laki24.fi/riri-rikokset-rikokset_viranomaisia_vastaan-haitanteko_virkamiehelle.html
    Point is that if you protest inside the offices and hinder the officials you could as such be considered to be violating the Finnish law. Furthermore ‘guards’ do not usually have rights to actually remove people from premises, they also call the police if they are unable to resolve the situation within the powers granted to them.
    ……
    Ohdake,
    What u r telling first of all is a joke.
    Secondly u admit that those racists done right to call police and terrorizing me… so u r like them.

    UR POINTS ARE POINTLESS
    So u can not claim with pointless pint and with a pointless law.

  51. Brave

    ohdake,
    Ur police officer is and was a racist also ur dear social workers.
    I do not care that u fall in love with racists and law.
    I do not care that u scream in a dark pit against me, because ur pit is very deep and i am enjoying my light.

    Law?
    So in ur eyes in the name of law police and social workers can do what ever they want?
    U can not cover their racist character behind a black curtain of law…can u?
    But sure u can support them as u wish… for here u are living in 1th century…

    U r my enemy but u have no power on me
    U try so hard to show the opposite of the fact that i experienced…
    Have u never asked yourself why this woman suffers?
    U claim social workers were not racists who called to police with a plan that they had in their balck minds
    Then police who attacked me, kept me in jail, insulted me, and made me a criminal case was not racist
    then the law who supported them was not racist
    Now
    tell us
    what is racist?
    U r like a child that their parents gave him food and he cries and screams that this is not food but stone.
    If u close the program that u have in your mind and open ur eyes… u will see racism and racists in my case.
    Just be quiet and taste ur food… its not claim, its not stone, but its food, taste it.
    ………….
    However
    U r a good example of those people
    U r all same same
    U r all telling this
    LAW
    and
    So
    Thats why
    they done their crime on me
    because
    They knew
    In the name of law they are free to do what ever they want…
    And thats why they are racist

  52. ohdake

    How did you arrive at this conclusion?

    Because it happens regardless of ethnicity. It does not discriminate against any one. It just is what Finnish culture (so to speak) happens to be.

    How can you take a point about the difficulty of proving racism and necessary caution and investigation and make it into a point about assuming all claims of racism are true?

    Because you turned the matter into considering emotional stress of encountering different culture as racism. That’s where.

    However, lack of service appears to have been demonstrated in the clear fact the client felt disrespected and was not supported. The fact that they called the police suggests they were unable to deal appropriately with immigrants/refugees, while the various decisions to prosecute Dana likewise suggest that this situation was overblown and the ‘strong arm’ of the law was totally unnecessary.

    In other words you have plenty of ‘appears’, ‘suggests’ and the like. What i was after was that in order for there to be any reaction to the matter you actually need show that something was wrong. Just because you ‘feel like it’ or that it ‘appears’ or that something ‘suggests’ means just about nothing. If some one starts a protest inside a official building it would be a really weird day if the matter wouldn’t escalate quickly.

    Like I said, if the whole of Finland chooses to ignore the specific needs or lack of tacit knowledge of refugees but then criminalises them in situations that are totally avoidable with some common sense, then I would say Finland is being hugely discriminatory towards immigrants.

    By coming to Finland and living there you also need to abide by the laws of Finland – whether you like those laws or not. You can not assume the customs would adapt to your needs in a foreign country.

    And it is pointless to state that Finland would have criminalized Dana. She did that by herself by resisting a police officer. Situation might have been escalated further than required but that is what the matter boils down to. And matter could have been resolved with common sense, all Dana needed was to walk away and file a protest later.

    Hardly. That in itself was an escalation, a threat. I would hardly call that ‘exploring alternatives’.

    If the officials had nothing else to be said in the matter that was all they could have done. There are quite distinct limits as to what can and can not be done.

    Sitting in a chair in the corrider is hindering their work how, exactly?

    If she is blocking or taking room then she could be understood as hindering the work of the officials working there.

    And who said the guard should have removed her? The issue is that Dana was to be made aware of just how serious the consequences could be.

    Except the consequences were not serious even when the police where called to the location. It only escalated because she resisted the police officers. Which is rather severe offense under most if not all countries.

    Common sense should tell you that in this situation, responsibility for various outcomes are shared between all the parties involved.

    Tell that to Dana. Judging from her latest post that is something that has not seeped in quite yet.

    If it comes down to Finns not being prepared to adapt and even to educate foreigners about their system, then, yes, that is in effect racism, in the sense of treating people of different ethnicity and culture as ‘less’ than Finns, as ‘undeserving’ of tolerance and even of education.

    You can not ask an existing culture to adopt to your needs simply because it goes against your personal preferences. Do note that it just as likely that any change you propose goes against some one else’s personal preference. Wouldn’t those people be equally entitled to have the culture changed to what they want it to be?

    What i have understood of the rest that is exactly what ‘social integration’ (kotouttaminen) is all about. And that has been in force for quite a while. It is not about treating people of differing ethnicities or cultural backgrounds as less as Finns or undeserving of anything. It is about integrating them to the society and treating them all as Finns (except in this case ‘Finns’ has somewhat broader scope).

    Okay, and why are these routes only open to Dana and not to the Social staff?

    Sure they were. But no matters of any kind will be resolved under any kind of threat or protest. There are legal ways of making and filing complaints if you feel that you have been mistreated.

    Care to explain how Finns are discriminated against in Finland by a law that provides rights to EU citizens?

    Because the there is an exception for other EU countries but not for Finns. Had you read the page i linked (and which you copy-pasted) you might have noticed that.

    This doesn’t make her actions any the less illegal, but it does clearly illustrate that the ‘escalation’ of the situation into one where a crime was committed was in part the result of the heavy handed approach of the officials.

    Yet – to return to the topic – that does not show that there would be any kind of racism involved in the matter.

    However, to then go back to one’s own national context and to contradict those agreed principles, while clearly is playing politics, it is nevertheless not in the spirit of how the EU parliament operates through this open method of co-ordination.

    No it isn’t since EP recommendations have no real substance to them. They are just recommendations, not requirements, demands, or anything such. It also means that they can be ignored if so desired. That is just how things work.

    A recommendation cannot be made WITHOUT a policy. The recommendation embodies the agreed upon policy; namely, it details the actors, the issues, the relevant activities and processes that would be affected by that policy or that that policy would like to affect.

    Recommendation is where the policy ended. You can not extrapolate it further from that. It it just a recommendation without anything added to it. It has no value to member states nor is there any requirement or need for the member states to heed of it.

    Your assumption that these claims are ‘wild’ and unfounded is exactly that, an assumption.

    Which is exactly what the whole discussion was based upon. On unfounded claims or racism. So there are rather crucial to the discussion. As are the rather hollow basis of the claims.

    Your eagerness to individualise the problems of racism by merely attacking Dana’s own testimony and your failure to respond from the fuller perspective of what we know about how racism DOES work illustrates the problem very well.

    Because there is no substance to her claims. Nothing she told – or what you extrapolated upon that – showed racism. What it did show was something that you – without anything supporting your conclusions – immediately branded as racism.

  53. Brave

    Ohdake,
    If she is blocking or taking room then she could be understood as hindering the work of the officials working there
    Corridor is not room
    There are chairs in corridor, it means for clients
    So why u against me?

  54. Brave

    OhdSure they were. But no matters of any kind will be resolved under any kind of threat or protest. There are legal ways of making and filing complaints if you feel that you have been mistreated.
    …..
    Oh yes i see, like i complained them to sosiaalimies asia, and court, ..,..,…………………….

  55. Brave

    Oh dake not mistreated but racism treated… believe it or not it cant change the fact
    It was racist
    Because they could not do this to a Finn, even when police talks to drunks in streets talk in respect with them… so it was racist what they done at me.

  56. Brave

    Ohdake,
    Because there is no substance to her claims. Nothing she told – or what you extrapolated upon that – showed racism. What it did show was something that you – without anything supporting your conclusions – immediately branded as racism.
    ……….
    Oh really?
    Not claims but real experience…
    My pain on my body for a week was not a claim
    He made a deep sign on my wrists because he twisted my arms with force and hate, i had this signature on my wrist for a few days… so its not claim but fact
    he was made fun at me in jail… it is not a claim but fact
    I been in jail
    they took my photo and finger prints
    and yet u tell
    police is best?

  57. Brave

    Ohdake
    That was racist
    all was racist
    in jail they treated me like am an animals
    in that time
    they were treating their dogs and cats in best way, and they were treating their drunks with beer and respect
    And in that time
    Ohdake
    Ur dog was on on ur soft sofa and in ur hug
    But i was in jail under a balck terror

  58. ohdake

    They take your fingerprints and photos when you apply for a passport too yet that is not oppressive. And if you resist to the police regardless of how justified you might feel the police will restrain you. You always had the chance of leaving peacefully or failing that abiding by the orders issued by the police. I’m not saying it wouldn’t hurt or that it wouldn’t feel offensive, just that it has very little to do with racism.

    Chairs in the corridors are indeed meant for the waiting clients. However they do belong to the social offices (i.e. it wasn’t your chair) and are not meant for protesters. And drunks usually don’t resist the police as they can be reasoned with to some extent. If they do resort to violence or resist the police then police will restrain them too just as well.

  59. Brave

    Ohdake,
    Thats different,if u apply for passport no/one can insult u and before that no/one can keep u in jail no/one can leave in in a cold jail and before that no/one can make fun at u when u have pain and ur arms are behind u and in handcuffs and before that no/one can beat u in day time in front of others in social welfare service and before that no/one can terrorizing u for police and before that no/one will send u an appointment and wont telling u come thats IMPORTANT…
    ……
    Chairs are not belong to social offices, we r not speaking about the owner of chairs and u r not speaking with a child, am not a child but what about u Ohdake?
    Social offices are adults not children and social welfare service is not a kindergarden they cant not make a fight for chair but they done and that’s because they all are wild and RACIST.
    Drunks are not like me, do u know differences between me and drunks?
    i been sure sitting on a chair and explaining politely to terrorists is not a crime and no/one will hurt me, because no/one has right to attack a person who sit in peace but i been wrong… because it was jungle and animal were around me… it was bot a social welfare service and they were wild angry animals.
    ………..
    If u apply for passport no/one will play a game with u more than a year, and finally no/one will make a court against u, who applied for passport.
    ………..
    Don’t tell thats not racist
    because
    in this case u just fight with ur
    CONSCIENCE… don’t fight with yourself

  60. ohdake

    Chairs are not belong to social offices, we r not speaking about the owner of chairs and u r not speaking with a child, am not a child but what about u Ohdake?
    Social offices are adults not children and social welfare service is not a kindergarden they cant not make a fight for chair…

    The whole building/office of social services/offices belong to them including the furniture. If you have difficulty understanding that then there is not much to go on. That means they can tell you to leave and also forbid you from sitting in the said chair. Like you said it is not a kindergarden.

    i been sure sitting on a chair and explaining politely to terrorists is not a crimeand no/one will hurt me, because no/one has right to attack a person who sit in peace but i been wrong…

    If you have been told to vacate the premises then you are no longer entitled to keep sitting on that chair. And according to what was told that is exactly what took place. Sitting on a chair is not a crime in itself. Not vacating the premises (trespassing) – and hindering the work of officials – however can be, on two different counts.

    It gets considerably worse if you do not heed what the officials tell you to do. Even just the act of not abiding by orders issued by officials can constitute a criminal offense. Resisting it certainly is.

  61. Brave

    Ohdake,
    They are racists and there is no doubt,now u can argue about chair and the owner,,, its a zero class argue in the zero century.
    Are we living in 21th century in Finalnd or in zero century?
    Chair and the owner…
    They r not owner of their minds how can they be owner of a chair or workers for people?
    Ohdake
    Don’t speak with your law book speak with logic if u can.
    What they done was an abuse, they abused me and law both… in the name or law book.
    Dont play with them in their kindergarten… they play danger game and they play danger roles .

  62. Brave

    ohdake,
    If you have difficulty understanding that then there is not much to go on.

    SAME TO YOU

    And no i don’t
    BUT
    What about yourself?

    not much to go yes… because u twist matter to chair and owner
    U were not there to see what a balck theatre they made against me, so easy for u to speak about chair and owner

    chair and scammers
    u like it scammers?