Month: June 2014

Challenging urban tales about migrants and ourselves should be our first and foremost priority

Posted on by Migrant Tales

After contributing regularly for Migrant Tales and reading and answering some of the over 30,000 comments we have received in the past seven years, a bigger picture emerges. This has been reinforced by my work at a folk high school, where the majority of the students on campus aren’t white Finns.

languages

As Don Flynn of Migrants’ Right Network wrote, it’s crucial especially today that migrant community groups start working together to challenge the urban tales spread by opportunistic politicians in order to make a positive case for migration.

One such campaign he mentions is #MigrantsContribute!

He writes: ”[The group is] a social media-style name for a campaign that aims to bust into the mainstream with its core message that, far from being the unwelcome border crossers looking for a free ride so often presented by unscrupulous politicians and headline writers, migrants come to the UK full of hope and expectation that they will have the opportunity to contribute fully as fully rounded people in British society, and not merely exist as dehumanized factors of economic production.”

In order to get into the mindset of the far-right populist and those that spread anti-immigration rhetoric, it’s important to spot the red herring(s).

Since some politicians of the Perussuomalaiset (PS)* of Finland, an anti-EU, anti-immigration, homophobic and especially anti-Islam party, built their political careers on a message of intolerance, it’s clear that they seek today to find some kind of legitimacy.

An effective way of doing this is by giving a more mainstream image of the party and of oneself.

While such political parties and politicians may want to forge a new image of themselves, the context hasn’t changed at all.

They use underhanded and cheap-trick arguments to achieve a mainstream facelift. These arguments change constantly because they are based mostly on hearsay. If they stayed put, they’d be exposed as lies in many cases.

One typical argument used today by anti-immigration politicians is the following: We aren’t against immigration.”

The problem with this odd affirmation is that they are against immigration. It’s like the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale. A white migrant Prince Charming appears, kisses the native Sleeping Beauty, she awakens and they live happily ever after in their white society.

If we dig a bit deeper into this claim by some anti-immigration parties and politicians, we’ll find another layer that is highly revealing. By wanting only white, or the right migrants, our real aim is to keep our society white. Thus anti-immigration groups are against non-white migrants because they loathe cultural diversity.

Another important matter that Migrant Tales has taught me is to be especially careful with those that offer simplistic answer to complex questions like integration.

One of the most common simplistic arguments used in Finland – in my opinion – is learn Finnish or Swedish and problem solved: You’re integrated!

Learning the local language is crucial and plays an important part in the migrants adaption to his or her new homeland, but it isn’t, however, a panacea to integration.

By giving into simplistic arguments like “just learn the language,” we forget other equally important issues like why integration should be the rule but too often everyone expects you to assimilate. There are many other factors we lose sight of as well: acceptance, inclusion, respect for cultural diversity, identifying pitfalls like poor performance of third-culture children at school, ethnic profiling, high migrant unemployment, poverty, health and social exclusion.

 

* The Finnish name for the Finns Party is the Perussuomalaiset (PS). The names adopted by the PS, like True Finns or Finns Party, promote in our opinion nativist nationalism and xenophobia. We therefore prefer to use the Finnish name of the party on our postings. 

 

Migrants’ Rights Network: #MigrantsContribute! promises an active campaign to advance positive arguments for migrants

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Migrant Tales insight: Another excellent posting by Migrants’ Rights Network on how immigrant communities challenge politicians who spread lies and reinforce prejudices about migrants. We need such a campaign in Finland. 

Writes Don Flynn:

#MigrantsContribute! is a social media-style name for a campaign that aims to bust into the mainstream with its core message that, far from being the unwelcome border crossers looking for a free ride so often presented by unscrupulous politicians and headline writers, migrants come to the UK full of hope and expectation that they will have the opportunity to contribute fully as fully rounded people in British society, and not merely exist as dehumanised factors of economic production.

___________________

Don Flynn*

Don_web_0

We have now entered the final twelve months of the longest general election campaign in British history. That so, it is good to hear that migrant community groups are working together to get messages across to the population about the positive case for migration.

 

The report from our friends and colleagues at Migrant Voice about the representation of the viewpoint of migrants in the mainstream media makes shocking reading.  We are supposed to be right in the middle of a ‘grown-up’ conversation about immigration and its impacts on life in Britain and yet in 77% of the coverage of this issue the people most directly involved in the business of migration do not even get a look in.

With these facts as a backdrop, the news that the initiative is being seized by a group of people from migrant communities with a project aimed at elbowing their way to a more prominent position in the public discussion is very welcome.

at_UAF_conference

 

 

#MigrantsContribute! is a social media-style name for a campaign that aims to bust into the mainstream with its core message that, far from being the unwelcome border crossers looking for a free ride so often presented by unscrupulous politicians and headline writers, migrants come to the UK full of hope and expectation that they will have the opportunity to contribute fully as fully rounded people in British society, and not merely exist as dehumanised factors of economic production.

The first public presentation of plans for #MIgrantsContribute! was made by Tatiana Garavito at the national conference Stand Up To Racism held in London last Saturday. Tatiana is the director of the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and the current holder of the Young Woman of the Year Award, given each year by Women on the Move.

Her arguments in support of #MIgrantsContribute! are set out in the blog featured in MRN Migrant Pulse.  She explains how people from migrant communities are “upset” when they hear how political parties are “prepared to use lies and distortions about migrants, which are far from the truth, to gain votes and encourage a hostile response to migrants.”

The campaign will be making use of an array of messages aimed at countering these negative images of migrants, setting out facts about all the things that they bring within them, aside from their desire to work and get on in life.

Supporters of #MigrantsContribute! have moved quickly to set up a Facebook fan page and a Twitter account. In the next few days it will be launching the #MigrantsContribute Manifesto. People who want to sign up to the campaign will be invited to submit ‘selfies’ showing their support for the initiative.

Watch this space to follow developments with #MigrantsContribute!

drum_solo

 

suitcase

languages

 

Read original story here.

This piece was reprinted by Migrant Tales with permission.

*Don Flynn, the MRN Director, leads the organisation’s strategic development and coordinates MRN’s policy and project work. He is a regular and sought-after speaker at conferences, seminars and lectures on behalf of MRN.

Defining white Finnish privilege #3: No history, no doctrine, no heroes and no martyrs

Posted on by Migrant Tales

In many respects white privilege, or specifically white Finnish privilege, is a good way to understand some of the challenges that migrants and especially non-white Finns face in this country. Migrant Tales invites its readers to share their thoughts on the social ill.

Please send your comments on the topic to [email protected]. We’d love to hear from you.

 

The Olen Suomalainen video clip says it all about making Finland a more inclusive country. Read full story here.
Are the days of white Finnish privilege counted or extended?

Understanding what white privilege is essential if we want to challenge intolerance in Finland. It’s pretty clear that the way white privilege works in the United States or in the United Kingdom shouldn’t differ greatly from white Finnish privilege.

Let’s look at some definitions of this social ill below.

Harry Brod states the following: “It [white privilege] is something that society gives me, and unless I change the institutions which give it to me, they will continue to give it, and I will continue to have it, however noble and equalitarian my intentions.”

Francis E. Kendall defines white privilege:

Privileges are bestowed on us by the institution with which we interact solely because of our race, not because we are deserving as individuals. While each of us is always a member of a race or races, we are sometimes granted opportunities because we, as individuals, deserve them; often we are granted them because we, as individuals, belong to one or more of the favored groups in our society.

Urban Dictionary defines it the following words:

The racist idea that simply being white benefits people in some unexplainable way, and that discriminating against white people is not only okay, but enlightened and necessary. The excuse some extremists use to justify pretty much any level of racism, as long as it is coming from people of color. A young American woman died because in college she was brainwashed into believing that her white privilege would protect her from being run over by a bulldozer.

And Time Wise says:

White privilege refers to any advantage, opportunity, benefit, head start, or general protection from negative societal mistreatment, which persons deemed white will typically enjoy, but which others will generally not enjoy.

If white privilege is detrimental to non-whites, the only way to challenge it is to expose and challenge it. This won’t be easy since who in their right minds wants to give up their privileges?

One way to start is to show the negative impact that white privilege not only has on minorities but on all of society.

A good question to ask if “since when was racism and prejudice good for society?”

____________

Definition #3

Rodolfo Walsh, an Argentinean journalist and writer, said something that we should never forget when we write our history.* Even if it was written in the 1970s and in Argentina, it still applies to immigrants and multicultural Finns and exposes how white Finnish privilege works:

Our dominant classes have made sure that the worker has no history, doesn’t have a doctrine, any heroes or any martyrs. Every struggle has to be started from scratch, separated from previous struggles; the collective history is lost, their lessons are forgotten. History appears as it if were private property, whose owners are the owners of everything.

In other words, as a migrant and Other in Finland, you have no history, no heroes or martyrs. Every struggle you begin starts from zero because you have no collective history. The only history that counts, and what you’ll be taught, is that of white Finns. You are unimportant and not taken into account.

*Wrote Alice Walker in her first published essay The Civil Rights Movement: What Good Was It? 

If the civil rights movement is ‘dead’, and if it gave us nothing else, it gave us each other for ever. It gave us history and men far greater than presidents. It gave us heroes, selfless men of courage and strength, for our little boys and girls to follow. It gave us hope for tomorrow. It called us to life.

See also:

What would you see if you looked in Jussi Halla-aho’s eyes?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Plans to give the Perussuomalaiset (PS)* a facelift and turn it into a mainstream party took another step in that direction when the new chairman of the European Conservatives and Reformist (ECR) group of the European parliament, MEP Syed Kamall, was satisfied with PS MEP Jussi Halla-aho’s explanation for his conviction for ethnic agitation.

What else could Kamall say after the PS and far-right Danish People’s Party, which have two “MEPs with criminal records,” joined the ECR?

If Kamall looked Halla-aho in the eye, what feelings would it raise among those migrants in Finland that the PS politician has insulted? What about Finland’s Somali community? What about the regular Immigrant Joe who works hard and pays his taxes in Finland but has to deal with the daily suspicion and discrimination that is reinforced by politicians like him?

Should they look him in the eye too and ask when this cat-and-mouse racism will stop.

If I looked in Halla-aho’s eyes I would probably see a troubled politician who is trying his hardest to justify the racism he wrote about in the past. His balancing act it living with the ghost of his past.

Here’s another big gamble that the PS and Halla-aho are talking in light of recent events. By trying to appear more mainstream, it’s the voters who will decide at the end of the day if they like the changes no matter how many times anyone looks Halla-aho and the party in the eye.

Näyttökuva 2014-6-14 kello 7.38.05

Read full story here on YLE in English.

In Halla-aho’s words about the ECR: “They wondered a little bit about how something like this [writing he got sentenced for] could have brought a conviction.”

In Kamall’s words: “I sat down with him when I saw that issue reported, I looked him in the eye and I said ‘tell me about this…I’m satisfied by his explanation. Once again we are looking to parties that are looking to reform, we are looking for people…we don’t look at the past, we want to look at where we’re moving forward.”

Kamall said that if the Finns Party want to be a mainstream party and he’d be happy to help them with such a task.

Kamall is the same politician who justified the Danish People’s Party (DPP) membership into the ECR. He was quoted as saying on the Financial Times:

“The Danish People’s party is on a political journey. It now has a policy of controlled immigration and disagrees with those on the left who would allow uncontrolled immigration and benefit tourism.There is a clear distinction that the left-wing media often fails to make between a party that wants to control immigration and one that seeks to demonize immigrants. The DPP is the former.”

Possibly the MEP and head of the ECR should ask those migrants, Danes married with foreigners, and Muslims if the DPP doesn’t demonize migrants. The answers he’d receive could be highly revealing.

These types of statements by a Conservative Party MEP shouldn’t surprise us since they generally agree with the anti-immigration and anti-Islam stances of parties like the PS and DPP.

Thanks to the rise of an anti-EU and anti-immigration party, the UKIP, the Tories have preferred to mimic Nigel Farage’s message instead of challenging it. It’s the same story that happened in Finland before the PS’ historic election victory in 2011.

The United Kingdom has under Tory Prime Minister David Cameron become a more hostile place for immigrants in the form of giving space to intolerance through Go Home campaign and fear-mongering about hordes of Romanians swarming to the United Kingdom.

If you want to find out why Cameron has become so anti-EU and anti-immigration, all you have to do is look at Nigel Farage’s UKIP, which became the first party apart from the Tories and Labor to win an election since the early twentieth century.

The Tories are not a friendly party to migrants, which explains why the ECR has no problems with admitting xenophobic parties like the PS and DPP to its ranks.

* The Finnish name for the Finns Party is the Perussuomalaiset (PS). The names adopted by the PS, like True Finns or Finns Party, promote in our opinion nativist nationalism and xenophobia. We therefore prefer to use the Finnish name of the party on our postings.  

World Café ponders if Porvoo, Finland, is a multicultural city

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Migrant Tales insight:  The World Café concept is an excellent way to empower and encourage people to participate and promote active citizenship. This World Café session, which took place in Porvoo on May 17, and asked participants to give their views on how cultural diversity is faring in the city.

One of the important findings of the event was that Porvoo needed to do more work in inclusion of migrants. Write the organizers: “All agreed Porvoo is a good place to live and the issues here are no different from any other city in Finland. There will be an even greater racial mix but this does not mean we will understand or communicate better with each other unless we take action now to make this happen.”

The event was organized by Citizens’ Forum, whose mission is to build civil society through culture and civic education offered by organizations.

___________________

The idea

The hearing was a part of the Participatory Community work –project of Citizens´ Forum. The project had two main elements; Identity work and active citizenship. The hearing in Porvoo concentrated on the latter. The idea in Porvoo was to build an open space for discussion of the people in Porvoo. The theme for the hearing was Porvoo – the city of many cultures. It was selected because we wanted to raise the issue that there are many people from other countries living in Porvoo who are not a problem or a threat but a possibility and a source for building a better Porvoo.

 

This video will give you an idea of how the World Café concepts works.

The basic work

We noticed that to be able to do participatory community work in the real sense of the word we had to find some way to get a position in the community where we can have a dialogue with the different actors (Finns, ethnic minorities, officials of the city, associations, educational institutions) who work with the theme of multiculturalism. One challenge for us was also to find ways to support the co-operation between the different institutions with common goals.

To do this basic work Alex McKie from Citizens´ Forum worked in Porvoo for three months before the Word Café Hearing. He also made tight co-operation with Kepa and the Mahdollisuuksien tori project group which was organising the Mahdollisuuksien Tori (Marketplace of Possibilities) event 2014 in Porvoo. To get the synergy effects there was a decision made that the Citizens´ Forum World Café will take place on the same day as the Mahdollisuuksien tori on the 17th of May.

In the process of making the hearing possible there were many actors working together with us. We have to mention some of the partners in the network. The Culture House Grand was giving us the possibility to use the culture house as a venue for the hearing. Amisto – ammattiopisto prepared a devising drama performance with which the hearing was opened. Luckan was helping us to connect us with many important actors eg. the ombudsman for minorities Eva Biaudet. Eva Biaudet sent a video greeting to the participants of the hearing. We also had contact with Mikaela Nylander, a member of the Parliament and the chair of the Porvoo city council. The Red Cross of Porvoo was marketing the event actively and they also had a work shop on Young people and voluntary work right after the World Café on the 17th of May.

The Word Café

It was a long process to choose the actual method for the hearing. We were first thinking of a panel on our theme but we decided that it was not deliberative enough to meet our needs. For a long time we were discussing whether the hearing should be organized as a World Café or as an open space discussion. As we didn’t know if 5 or 50 people would turn up or how many languages the discussion would include etc. , we decided to do it as a Word Café.

In the process we had four Café tables and for questions: Is Porvoo Multicultural? How has multiculturalism affected your life? How can people from different cultures talk together? How will my Porvoo look like in the year 2020? We also had four discussion rounds, so each participant could discuss all the themes.

We had a team of facilitators which reflected the cultural and language construction of the Porvoo community. About 20 citizens turned up. As all of them were able to communicate in English we decided to make the hearing in English.

The four discussion round lasted about one hour. Afterwards we had a feedback discussion where the facilitators of each Café table introduced the discussions which had taken place in their group. These introductions are presented beneath.

Café Table nr 1: Is Porvoo multicultural?

The initial response to this question was: yes, and this was given without hesitation. However, with each group there was also the same response that there are not many people from other cultures visible, at least not in the city centre. They also seem to keep a low profile wherever they are. A group of six young ethnic minority youth disclosed that if you are from an ethnic minority group you are more likely to be picked on. People know that what they are doing is wrong but they do it anyway. The young participants also felt that they are blamed for most things before their white counterparts. They especially didn’t feel listened to or understood by their teachers and their message to them was: “open your ears”.

Other group members who have had contact with newcomers to Finland stated that it is very hard for people from ethnic minority groups to access mainstream services and they gave sport as an example. People from ethnic minority groups are likely to live in two areas of the city and don’t tend to travel beyond these areas. They also spoke of young people who are acting as carers for the rest of the family due their language skills. They felt that many people from ethnic minority groups are isolated and especially they need courage to access anything mainstream.

All agreed that Porvoo is multicultural but only in the smallest sense. The mere fact that there are people from many cultures in Porvoo, doesn’t make Porvoo Multicultural in strict meaning of the word. What matters is the quality of the dialogue between the people and cultures. Some participants thought that there is an expectation for ethnic minorities to assimilate into Finnish Culture at the cost of their own.

There was a sense of disappointment. At the same time the Mahdollisuuksien tori (Marketplace for Possibilities) was taking place outside and candidates of the European election were campaigning and yet so few people were willing to discuss such important issues. They felt that we spend a lot of time in festivals and events, which are multicultural but there is no open discussion of the effects of multiculturalism. This dismay was expressed as to why there were no city officials taking part in the forum and why were these issues being avoided.

Café Table nr 2: How has multiculturalism affected your life.

All participants of this discussion felt that multiculturalism had affected their lives in positive ways. The overall view was that in last five years Porvoo has become a much better place for different cultures to live together. This cultural mix gives new ideas and freshens to the society. There were also positive ideas about what newcomers contribute to the economy and culture of the city.

Many of the white Finnish participants said they work together with people from ethnic minority groups on a daily basis and they feel it has improved their lives. They feel that the attitude is important and if you have an international view of the world it helps you accept other cultures. In their work they come across vulnerable people from other cultures and they feel that helping them is an important step in building mutual trust.
The participants felt that friendship between cultures is possible when we see the person as human beings. There can be some challenges, but if you do the work, it enriches every ones life.

Café Table nr 3: How can people from different cultures talk together?

The participants felt that one of the key obstacles to intercultural communication is language. People have to have some kind of common language to be able to communicate with each other. But this is not enough. We have to build a solid foundation for people to have an opportunity to communicate as equals. First of all there should implement a measurable integration strategy. This strategy take into account the holistic needs of individuals and their families (incl. questions of education, employment, social services and rights as citizens).

There should be education on multiculturalism in schools as early as possible and education for employers to recognize the skills and professionalism of ethnic minorities. The Media should also have a clear agenda in questions relating to multiculturalism. In this way we would get more of a balanced perspective and understanding about the underlying issues.

There are very good examples of cultural cooperation between people in Porvoo. But many issues that immigrants face in their every day lives are not spoken of. It was thought that there is not a good mix of the different cultural groups in Porvoo and people tend to stay within their own culture. This was one of the contributory features of isolation and creates barriers to positive interaction.

All agreed there was a need to empower and strengthen ethnic minority groups in positive ways which would include them in decision making processes. Some examples where this kind of participation could take place are decisions about social services, recreation and education. Sport was also an area of concern, because there are many young people who would like to take part in sports but don’t. They consider the main reason for this is an inadequate understanding of the needs of these young people by the coaches and the overall atmosphere which makes it difficult to join.

Café Table nr 4: What will my Porvoo look like in the year 2020?

Porvoo will become more international and less traditional due to the expansion of the Helsinki metropolis. There will be a greater cultural mix but this will not necessarily lead to better understanding of each other. Dialogue between cultures will become an even more complicated issue. Although we will be more aware of other cultures there may be little interaction between groups if we don’t take action to address this issue. The participants recommended that we take positive steps towards creating spaces for cultural interaction. This would be where different cultures can meet equally and take proactive action to strengthen cultural identity and encourage inclusion. They would like to see more meeting points where issues can be discussed and give Citeizens’ Forum World Café as an example.

The younger members of the forum also described Porvoo as the best place to live and expressed this in writing on the table cloths of the World Café: “Porvoo is best”. In the discussions there was a sense of optimism that Porvoo is a good place to live and that the issues raised are to be found all over the country. They feel that there are the resources and will to meet the needs of 2020 Porvoo. However, this needs openness and a place where contrasting views can be heard.

Conclusions and recommendations.

Porvoo is multicultural and that is not going to change. This gives the citizens many challenges and experiences that can improve the quality of our lives. For this to happen we need to listen and to learn from each other. The forum was described by its members as the first time they had been able to learn from others in this way about the themes of multiculturalism. One of the biggest issues that all expressed was the disappointment that city officials and politicians had not taken part in the forum. They also wondered why it is so difficult to talk about issues we are not so comfortable with like discrimination end exclusion.

On a positive note they think that they have now found their voices and a way to work together that can find a way forward. But for this to happen it needs greater awareness and understanding of how discrimination affects the quality of people’s lives. For attitudes to change there needs to be more forums like this Citizens’ forum World Café.

We had spoken of the need to break down stereotypes and to start to look at each other as people. This worked both ways and a need was identified for ethnic minorities to stop stereotyping our Finnish counterparts and to understand their situation and story as well. The forum had established trust between us as people free from institutional or cultural constraints.

We identified many issues but did not have the time to form actions. We felt that to do this we would want to give our decisions to the representatives of the local government of Porvoo to decide what action can be taken.

MP Olli Immonen reinforces that the PS is a xenophobic and racist party

Posted on by Migrant Tales

After the EU election victories of the National Front of France, UKIP and the Danish People’s Party, Perussuomalaiset (PS)* MP Olli Immonen lashes out against Muslims on a blog entry, claiming that Europe is being overtaken by Muslims. 

This latest attack by Immonen against Muslims, migrants and non-white Finns, is a good example that the PS is a xenophobic party with deep far-right roots that loathes cultural diversity. Immonen’s stance is no different from the ethnic war drums that politicians like Marine Le Pen’s National Front and Geert Wilders’ Party of Freedom are beating.

Näyttökuva 2014-6-12 kello 10.43.28

While Immonen’s racist rants don’t surprise us, the silence of the PS, who claims not to be a racist party, the media and politicians is equally worrying.

There is very little value in what Immonen writes except that it exposes that racism is the same ogre in Finland as elsewhere in Europe.

* The Finnish name for the Finns Party is the Perussuomalaiset (PS). The names adopted by the PS, like True Finns or Finns Party, promote in our opinion nativist nationalism and xenophobia. We therefore prefer to use the Finnish name of the party on our postings. 

Defining white Finnish privilege #2: Third culture children versus “pupil with immigrant background”

Posted on by Migrant Tales

In many respects white privilege, or specifically white Finnish privilege, is a good way to understand some of the challenges that migrants and especially non-white Finns face in this country. Migrant Tales invites its readers to share their thoughts on the social ill.

Please send your comments on the topic to [email protected]. We’d love to hear from you.

1236552_10202115824077934_1256797555_n

Do you live or kill time?
Are the days of white Finnish privilege counted or extended?

Understanding what white privilege is essential if we want to challenge intolerance in Finland. It’s pretty clear that the way white privilege works in the United States or in the United Kingdom shouldn’t differ greatly from white Finnish privilege.

Let’s look at some definitions of this social ill below.

Harry Brod states the following: “It [white privilege] is something that society gives me, and unless I change the institutions which give it to me, they will continue to give it, and I will continue to have it, however noble and equalitarian my intentions.”

Francis E. Kendall defines white privilege:

Privileges are bestowed on us by the institution with which we interact solely because of our race, not because we are deserving as individuals. While each of us is always a member of a race or races, we are sometimes granted opportunities because we, as individuals, deserve them; often we are granted them because we, as individuals, belong to one or more of the favored groups in our society.

Urban Dictionary defines it the following words:

The racist idea that simply being white benefits people in some unexplainable way, and that discriminating against white people is not only okay, but enlightened and necessary. The excuse some extremists use to justify pretty much any level of racism, as long as it is coming from people of color. A young American woman died because in college she was brainwashed into believing that her white privilege would protect her from being run over by a bulldozer.

And Time Wise says:

White privilege refers to any advantage, opportunity, benefit, head start, or general protection from negative societal mistreatment, which persons deemed white will typically enjoy, but which others will generally not enjoy.

If white privilege is detrimental to non-whites, the only way to challenge it is to expose and challenge it. This won’t be easy since who in their right minds wants to give up their privileges?

One way to start is to show the negative impact that white privilege not only has on minorities but on all of society.

A good question to ask if “since when was racism and prejudice good for society?”

____________

Definition #2

Why are third-culture children being called openly at Finnish schools pupils “with immigrant backgrounds,” or maahanmuuttajataustainen in Finnish? Is it to strengthen their identity and self-esteem or to let them know at an early age that they lost out in Finland because they’re the wrong ethnicity and background? Are our schools teaching them to challenge labels such as maahanmuuttajataustainen and white Finnish privilege when they grow up?

With the power white ethnic Finns have over migrants and minorities, it’s clear that we are educating such youngsters to be complacent and apathetic second- and third-class citizens.

See also:

 

Defining white Finnish privilege #1: I have it and you don’t

Posted on by Migrant Tales

In many respects white privilege, or specifically white Finnish privilege, is a good way to understand some of the challenges that migrants and especially non-white Finns face in this country. Migrant Tales invites its readers to share their thoughts on the social ill. 

Please send your comments on the topic to [email protected].

IMG_9141

Are the days of white Finnish privilege counted or extended?

 

Understanding what white privilege is essential if we want to challenge intolerance in Finland. It’s pretty clear that the way white privilege works in the United States or in the United Kingdom shouldn’t differ greatly from white Finnish privilege.

Let’s look at some definitions of this social ill below.

Harry Brod states the following: “It [white privilege] is something that society gives me, and unless I change the institutions which give it to me, they will continue to give it, and I will continue to have it, however noble and equalitarian my intentions.”

Francis E. Kendall defines white privilege:

Privileges are bestowed on us by the institution with which we interact solely because of our race, not because we are deserving as individuals. While each of us is always a member of a race or races, we are sometimes granted opportunities because we, as individuals, deserve them; often we are granted them because we, as individuals, belong to one or more of the favored groups in our society.

Urban Dictionary defines it the following words:

The racist idea that simply being white benefits people in some unexplainable way, and that discriminating against white people is not only okay, but enlightened and necessary. The excuse some extremists use to justify pretty much any level of racism, as long as it is coming from people of color. A young American woman died because in college she was brainwashed into believing that her white privilege would protect her from being run over by a bulldozer.

And Time Wise says:

White privilege refers to any advantage, opportunity, benefit, head start, or general protection from negative societal mistreatment, which persons deemed white will typically enjoy, but which others will generally not enjoy.

If white privilege is detrimental to non-whites, the only way to challenge it is to expose and challenge it. This won’t be easy since who in their right minds wants to give up their privileges?

One way to start is to show the negative impact that white privilege not only has on minorities but on all of society.

A good question to ask if “since when was racism and prejudice good for society?”

________________

Definition #1

White Finnish privilege requires me to near-constantly define my Otherness in order to make me unequal or be identified as a person who does not have full access to those privileges bestowed to white Finns. 

 

Migrants’ Rights Network: £18,600 income requirement – pricing UK workers out of a family life

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Ruth Grove-White*

New research by MRN shows the uneven impacts of the minimum income requirement across the UK, and calls for change towards a fairer system for family migration.

A few weeks ago, we were contacted by a lady called Margaret, who lives in South Wales. Margaret has worked for the past decade as a legal secretary for a private solicitors firm, earning £13,500 a year. However, her salary is not considered adequate in order to sponsor her Tunisian husband to enter the UK, and so they are living apart for the foreseeable future.

In Margaret’s view, the rules are unfair. She is in stable employment, lives with family so has no housing costs and has low outgoings as the cost of living in her area is low. Margaret says

I’m doing a respectable job, but am now being told that my salary is not enough. It’s just so difficult to find work at £18,600 in my area. It doesn’t make sense because we could both live with my parents when he comes here, and Mohammed wants to work, and pay taxes, too. But if I leave and go to Tunisia, we will never be able to come back together. In the meantime, we are kept apart and are unable to start the family that we planned to have together.

Margaret is not the only person whose earnings are too low to meet the rules and be with her husband. 47% of the working population are reportedly unable to sponsor a loved one, on the basis of their earnings. Because £18,600 is considerably higher than the national minimum wage (approximately £13,200 per annum at a full time rate), some people, like Margaret, are in full-time employment and still fail to meet the rules.

But, crucially, where you live and work in the UK is a significant determiner of your ability to live with a foreign partner. New research by MRN, released today, shows that being able to live with your non-EU spouse is now essentially subject to a postcode lottery.

The research reviews Office of National Statistics earnings data for employees across the 632 parliamentary constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales. It finds that, in 74 British parliamentary constituencies, less than 50% of employees have a gross annual income at or above £18,600 per annum. That means that more than half of workers living in these areas are effectively priced out of having a family life with a non-EU national.

family-migration

 

Workers in parts of the North West and South West of England, as well as across Wales, are particularly likely to be affected due to lower than average earnings in those areas. By contrast, the ten parliamentary constituencies with the highest average earnings are all based in London. Someone living and working in Putney, in London, is effectively more than twice as likely to be able to meet the rules than a worker residing in Blackpool South.

Since July 2012, a number of MPs have raised the issue of the regional disadvantage felt by some trying to meet the family migration rules. The Government has resisted calls for a regionally varied income requirement, and largely refused to acknowledge the uneven impacts of the rules across the UK.  But surely the solution is for the Government to reduce the income requirement to a level that can be realistically reached by workers across the UK – with the level of the National Minimum Wage seeming like a sensible place to start. In addition, widening the income sources that can be used to meet the rules would allow families to reflect the full range of resources available to them in their applications.

Currently, many of the families affected by the rules are anxiously awaiting the Court of Appeal judgement on the MM & Ors legal challenge. This is an important case, but we understand that any outcome from the legal challenges, even in the best case scenario, is unlikely to be felt before the next general election.

In the meantime, the mounting evidence that the bar for family migration is prohibitively high needs to reach a wider set of parliamentarians who are more generally disturbed about the widespread disadvantages faced by the UK’s lower-income workers. It is critical that this wider group of MPs and peers, and other potentially supportive stakeholders, are drawn into the public debate about these rules.

Over the coming month, as we build up to the second anniversary of the family migration rules and the Court of Appeal judgement is issued, there will be renewed attention on this issue. If you are interested in campaigning, please put 9th July 2014 in your diary as there will be a parliamentary meeting from 10 – 11.30am in Westminster – you can sign up for that here. In addition, there will be lobbying and campaigning activities organised by MRN, JCWI and Britcits, and others across the Divided Families campaign.

Let’s work together to make the case for political change on this critical campaign.

  • To download the report click here [PDF].

  • MRN has sent copies of the report to the MPs of the 74 constituencies listed in the report. We would encourage all who wish to, to take the opportunity to write again to your local MP, enclosing a copy of the report. Please click here for a template letter. We strongly advise that you adapt the letter according to your personal circumstances – and please do let us know if you get a response.

  • Sign up to receive updates from MRN by registering on the We are Family website here.

Read original story here.

This piece was reprinted by Migrant Tales with permission.

*Ruth Grove-White is MRN’s Policy Director, responsible for developing the network’s responses to Government policy and legislation, leading on MRN parliamentary work and supporting the Director in representing the organization.

 

Jussi Halla-aho: “Do not tolerate the intolerant one”

Posted on by Migrant Tales

 

Migrant Tales insight: We get a lot of email and tip-offs from our readers. The latest one we got is of three blog entry translations in English of Perussuomalaiset (PS)* MEP Jussi Halla-aho, who was convicted for ethnic agitation. This last one, Do not tolerate the intolerant one, was published in Scripta on December 20, 2007. 

Apart from understanding how racism in Finland thrives and which arguments are used to spread hatred of other groups, one matter is clear from all three writings: They are repulsive and we apologize if anyone is offended by them. The writings have nothing to do with a PhD’s critical thinking; they are simply urban tales and prejudices that have been piled high and deep. 

Another important aspect that we must acknowledge about these writings is that they are hostile towards migrants and intended for gullible Finns. They are hateful writings that fuel prejudice, which in turn fuels social exclusion. 

Acceptance of these two anti-immigration parties this week in the ECR with “MEPs with criminal records,” proves that shoplifting is a worse offense for a politician today than being sentenced for ethnic agitation. It sadly exposes as well why racism has grown in Europe and why mainstream politicians and the media have helped fuel such intolerance. 

Our only motive for publishing these blog entries is so that other Europeans who don’t speak Finnish can read what kind of politician Halla-aho is. 

For more insight into the PS, take a look Far-right and anti-immigration quotes in English by the PS.

* The Finnish name for the Finns Party is the Perussuomalaiset (PS). The names adopted by the PS, like True Finns or Finns Party, promote in our opinion nativist nationalism and xenophobia. We therefore prefer to use the Finnish name of the party on our postings. 

_____________________

Quotes within the text taken from the summaries of EU legislation, “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia.”

Through the Gates of Vienna- blog I came across a proposition made in the EU concerning legal actions in the combat against racism and xenophobia. The EU has never interested me very much. Maybe it should.

“The purpose of this framework decision is to ensure that racism and xenophobia are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties in the European Union (EU).”

The beginning is already a promising one. Because racism, being a perception of the existence of different races, perhaps of their differences and of their relative value hierarchy, is an opinion and xenophobia an emotional state, I can’t quite figure out what the case might be here, other than attempting to legislate one’s thoughts.

Nonetheless, all depends on the definitions of “racism” and “xenophobia”:

“Public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin.”

Is it, therefore, intended to criminalize the feelings of repugnance?

“Certain forms of conduct as outlined below, which are committed for a racist or xenophobic purpose, are punishable as criminal offences:

    – public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin;

    – public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia;

    – public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

Instigating, aiding or abetting in the commission of the above offences is also punishable.”

Crimes matching the descriptions above surely take place in Europe. For example, the leftists in Sweden have publicly incited to assault skinheads (conviction), Muslims have on separate occasions incited to kill infidels (conviction) and Jews (religion and ethnicity), and have either denied the holocaust and the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, or in turn glorified them. Audio materials have been handed out in the mosques of Britain and Germany, in which all these deeds are being perpetrated.

But perhaps these aren’t the sort of crimes that the EU signifies.

Speaking seriously, the first two types of crimes are interesting. Incitement to violence or intimidation is easy to define. For instance, if I were to urge the killing of Muslims or threatened to do so myself, I would be the perpetrator of these acts. But what is public incitement to hatred or a public insult? Is the insult defined by one’s false and negative argument towards another, or rather by a true one that – although true – happens to violate the target?

Muslims are offended if Islam is called a violent, pedophile religion that oppresses women. Are these claims insulting, in the sense that the EU means them to be? With the mouths of the most highly learned, Islam calls to a holy war and to conquest the world. A significant proportion of Muslims are either ready for religious violence or silently condone it. Those highest learned ones in Islam refer to women as creatures lower to man, who are to be struck unless they otherwise obey, and to be raped unless they are dressed modestly. In almost all Islamic countries little girls are married off to older men, and there are no influential schools of thought to call these practices into question. Even the founder of the religion was a pedophile in the current sense of the word.

Since all criticism made towards Muslims or Islam violates the Muslim people, taking their offense into account and making it a yardstick of some sort only leads to a situation where the Muslim people and Islam, unlike any other, are not to be criticized. Surely a situation such as this can not be tolerable.

I understand that there are also deliberate violations of Islam. For example, rolling the Koran around in pig’s shit and uploading it to YouTube as performance art would obviously be a deliberate insult. But would the purpose of prohibiting such an act be equal treatment for all, or would it be intended to protect only the Muslim people?

In October [2007], Swedish neo-Nazis in Lund destroyed works of art in the History of Sex- exhibition using axes and iron pipes. They were motivated by the desire to prevent presentation of “perverted art”. One of the pieces was called “Piss Christ”, a statue of Jesus on the cross submerged in a container of the artist Anders Serrano’s urine.

The museum’s director considered this to be an attack on democracy and freedom of expression. Maybe it was, but I think it’s pretty obvious that Piss Christ had no other function than to offend Christians. The art crowds themselves would probably call it deconstruction, de-dramatization and so forth, but is the EU going to allow the analogous de-dramatization and deconstruction of Islam as well? When the Swedish Democrats Party published Danish cartoons on its website, security forces in accordance with instructions handed from a ministerial level, and in violation of the law, closed the site.

I do not remember the art crowds being all that concerned on an attack on democracy and freedom of expression. Although these cartoons, after all, contained a political message that was both clear and topical, as opposed to (at least in my opinion) Piss Christ.

Let it be noted that when an organization called Suomen Sisu published the same drawings on their website, the Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja condemned the act and Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen called for forgiveness from the Muslims burning the world. Finally the case ended up with the state prosecutor. And even here, I do not recall anyone to have been very concerned about democracy and freedom of speech.

Therefore, in the EU of the future, does the framework only concern those who have the intelligence to be offended? Does it also conclude the de-dramatization of Christianity?

What is meant by incitement to hatred? For I can not decide what kind of sensations some of my writings, for instance on the delinquency of immigrants, evoke in the reader. I admit, of course, that my intention is to stir up anti-immigration attitudes. This results from the fact that immigration is, in its current form, fatal to those things which I consider important, and there isn’t going to be a shift in the immigration policy unless people’s (=voters) attitudes change. I can not criticize immigration without criticizing the doings and beings of immigrants. Criticizing them, needless to say, is likely to increase the negative feelings towards the more relevant groups of immigrants. This is inevitable.

If, therefore, I were to argue that the Somali immigration and their emigration are a disaster for Finland, would it be considered hate-mongering towards the Somalis? In a way, yes, but mostly not. For I am not judging them by their color, what God they believe in or what kind of food they eat, but rather by what their presence means to Finland. If their actions and the way they carry themselves are due to the fact that they are Somalis, I can not help it.

The anti-immigrant and anti-immigration attitudes stem from the fact that certain groups of immigrants are living like pigs in a field. It is natural that knowledge of what these groups are doing is only adding to the negative attitudes, even hatred, towards said groups. By EU’s definition, therefore, knowledge alone can be incitement to hatred that is punishable. But can facts – and presenting them – be criminalized? Well, they can of course, but is that what they want to do?

It is interesting that the one of the subjects under protection includes “belief”, a.k.a. opinion. However, the definition of the crime will ultimately lead into being permitted to have only one and the same view of immigrants and immigration. Any criticism of Islam or the immigrants could be interpreted as offensive or hate-mongering. What sort of “beliefs” are this legislation meant to protect? Is hate-mongering against anti-immigrants or nationalists a punishable crime?

And what about the penalties? Proposals include such strong echoes from the Soviet Union, that it creeps the back of my spine:

* For public incitement to “racial hatred”, terms of imprisonment for a minimum amount no shorter than two years

* Alternative penalty of community service or participation in training

* Confiscation of all material used in the crime

* Denial of public assistance for legal entities

The latter mentioned might contain the possibility to withhold political party subsidies from organizations that criticize immigration.

The EU is busy imprisoning and organizing re-educative camps to those who express the wrong opinion. Perhaps the day when the mail delivers bad news or the door bell rings at night is not as far away as I thought. I’ve always laughed at the paranoia that is so common amongst the nationalist circles, but then again two internet writers have just been summoned to Districts for incitement. In addition, we know that the ex-Commissioner on National Minorities Mikko Puumalainen, before moving on to other tasks, frantically produced requests for investigating hate-mongers, so who’s to know what more is to come from consultation?

With these sentiments, I would like to say something to all my fellow-writers who are concerned about their future: You shouldn’t take your own life too seriously. On behalf of your convictions, you should go to jail or get shot. Everything we can accomplish by crawling or repenting vanishes, when our time is up. Rather soon, that is. Instead the consequences of our choices live on. We remember Andrej Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn because they did not give up for their personal good, but we do not remember the millions of Ivan Ivanovs, who apologized for what they said and carried out thorough self-criticism. If they had not given up, the end of the Soviet Union might have become a little more swiftly.

Totalitarianism is to be forced to control by violence, as it will reveal itself. If it manages to rule simply by fear, silencing wrong-thinkers one at a time, people think they are living in freedom and the cancer menacing our society grows undisturbed.