The cartoon below, “After the attack,” shows a member of an anti-immigration group drinking the blood of a victim of the Paris terrorist attack on Friday the 13th of November.
In my opinion, the cartoon below by Ville Ranta shows to a tee how members of anti-immigration groups and parties reacted to the Paris terrorist attacks.
What’s your opinion?
Don Flynn*
The Friday 13th attacks in Paris are being interpreted by many commentators as politicians as a watershed moment in public attitudes towards refugee policies in Europe.
But as recently as August and September this year hundreds and thousands of European citizens took a remarkable stand of declaring a welcome for refugees coming from the war-torn Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Attempts have been made to argue that this support has vanished in the wake of the terrorist attacks on people enjoying Friday night at music concerts and restaurants in the otherwise peaceful city of Paris. One example of this effort to declare an end to the moods which proclaimed support for the right of refugees to find a safe haven in Europe came in the form of an article in the London Evening Standard on 18 November. Prominent Conservative MP David Davis declared the need for an outright end to the freedom of movement in Europe which has been made possible by the Schengen Agreement.
Davis wrote: “… it is becoming evident that controlling Europe’s external borders, especially the porous borders of southern Europe, is virtually impossible. There are too many physical, legal, political and moral problems inherent in policing that vast frontier effectively.”
He appears to applaud the decisions of the Austrian, French, Dutch and Swedish governments to reintroduce border checks, and even the actions of the Hungarian and Slovak authorities in reinforcing these with kilometres of fencing and razor wire. Perhaps he believes that these actions will solve the “physical, legal, political and moral problems” that get in the way of managing the flow of people across the southern frontiers of the EU.
The proffered solution is a return to a Europe in which national states are responsible for admitting or refusing people entry into their territories and then dealing with the consequences. But, strangely enough, for the countries at the EU’s southern and eastern frontiers, that is exactly the system that has always operated. Greece operates primarily within a framework of Greek immigration policies when it comes to deciding who is permitted to cross its borders; as does Italy; France; Spain; and both Cyprus and Malta.
The claim that we are in today’s predicament because of the overbearing effects of bureaucratically-imposed European policies is clearly fallacious. We are where we are because Europe, acting in concert with other powers in the Eastern Mediterranean, has failed over the course of many years to overcome the crisis which spreads in a great arc from Turkey and across the North African Maghreb, with a tributary branch feeding in from the Horn of Africa. This failure has been allowed to create a great confluence of refugee movements that brings people to its own doorstep.
Declaring a formal end to the Schengen Agreement and reintroducing controls at all the internal borders of the EU will not deal with the situations which led to 218,000 refugees entering Europe in October alone. The driving forces behind these movements, as a recent commentary paper by the European Policy Centre points out, are the continuing upheaval in countries which have put 4.3 million Syrians, 2.6 million Afghans, 1 million Somalis and 600,000 Sudanese onto the road as refugees during the past few years.
‘Fortress Europe’ was never going to hold back the volume of people pressing against its gates indefinitely. The radical measures taken to impoverish the Greek state through austerity might have been the tipping point from struggling efforts to manage to outright crisis but the genie is now out the bottle and won’t easily be persuaded to go back in.
The anti-free movement lobby hopes that if one border can’t do the trick then maybe six, ten or twenty will succeed in holding back the refugee masses in someplace far away. Mr Davis rejoices in the fact that the UK is an island and the convenience of having a surrounding sea ought to buy the country a bit more scope for keeping the refugees out.
It is difficult to be happy with this as a solution to the business of managing refugee movements in the 21st century. The hope that all our neighbours will do the heavy lifting whilst we sit back to reap the benefits will not endear us European countries that want to see more solidarity as they face up to the challenges of processing the claims of those who seek a safe haven.
The attacks in Paris were agonisingly brutal for those who caught up in them. If it is possible for such an appalling situation to be made worse by any subsequent action it has come from the renewed clamour to roll back on refugee and migrant rights. Advocating this response looks too much like the very outcome that fanatics of Daesh have sought to engineer.
The security of ordinary people across Europe will not be enhanced by any measure that reduces the commitment of this region to human rights and the rights of refugees. The re-imposition of border checks on the myriad frontiers of the European states will check, for a time, the flow of desperate people. It will cause more hardship and suffering on top of what they have already had to endure. And it will be a step away from the countries of this region addressing the real root causes of the refugee crisis and will postpone the day when tens of thousands no longer feel that they have to embark on dangerous journeys to get to these shores.
Read original posting 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.
As long as we have politicians and other community leaders who support hate speech overtly or with their silence, and as long as parties like the Perussuomalaiset (PS)* base their support on racism against people who are different from them, Finland will not be a safe country for everyone.
The map below is shameful considering that we’re one of the most affluent and apparently safest countries in the world.
Politicians, the media and the public are ignorant of the sheer hardships and destruction that the war, which we’ve been accomplices in, have brought on the people of the Middle East and Africa. We’re only outsiders looking in and what our eyes reveal is enough for some of us to turn our backs.
But what about if I told you about the horrors of war and gave you a ringside view of the raw violence and utter despair of people who are commonly blown to shreds by bombs and hate? Would you want to know? Would what you’d see change your life forever?
There are probably more attacks against asylum reception centers in Finland than the YLE map above suggests. Migrant Tales wrote in early November a suspected arson attack against the Pitäjänmäki reception center that was not reported by the media.
Continue reading “UPDATE: An asylum reception center map we should all be ashamed of in Finland”
I got to know Susheela Daniel through many of her insightful Facebook postings. She was one of the brave women who protested in front of parliament against the election of Perussuomalaiset (PS)* party MP Maria Lohela as speaker of parliament. One of her latest Facebook posts was on “integrated migrants” raised some good questions about Uncle Toms in the migrant and minority community.
An Uncle Tom, or Tuomo-setä or setä Tuomo in Finnish, is a term used in the United States for people who betray their race in order to get privileges. Urban Dictionary defines it in the following way: “A black man who will do anything to stay in good standing with ‘the white man’ including betray his own people.”
In a multiethnic country like the United States, the Uncle Tom label plays an important role. One of the roles it plays is a bit similar to a deserter in times of war.
Taking a look at the violence and hostility that some minorities are facing in the United States, it’s clear that the Uncle Tom label aims to protect a community that is already embattled by racism, social exclusion and scarce opportunities.
How would one define an Uncle Tom in Finland?
Daniel admits that she’s never heard of the term Tuomo-setä in Finnish never mind in English but agrees that the phenomenon exists in Finland.
Continue reading “Susheela Daniel: On being a multicultural Finn”
Reija Härkönen
Tässä maassa on ihmisiä, jotka hyökkäävät sanoin ja väkivaltaisin teoin pakolaisia vastaan. Sotaa ja vainoa paenneita ihmisiä, äitejä ja isiä lapsineen pelotellaan ja uhkaillaan. Yksin tulleiden lastenkin majapaikkaan tehtiin jo polttopulloisku. Punaista Ristiäkin, hyväntekijää, vihataan, vaikka törkeimmätkin sotajoukot yleensä sallivat järjestön toiminnan siviilien ja haavoittuneiden parissa.
Meillä vihataan lapsia, koska he ovat tulleet vieraasta maasta ja vieraasta kulttuurista. Vihaajat on opetettu vihaamaan. Jo yli vuosikymmenen jatkunut järjestelmällinen vihanlietsonta on tehnyt tehtävänsä. Tuosta vastenmielisestä kampanjasta suurimmmassa vastuussa on Perussuomalaiset r.p., mutta muutkaan puolueet ja tahot eivät ole täysin viattomia.
Pelko ei sillä vähene, että vastaanottokeskusten tiedotustilaisuuksissa kuunnellaan hurmoshenkisiä rasisteja ja hysteerisiä tytärtensä puolesta pelkääjiä ja sanotaan, että poliisi kyllä valvoo. Ihmisille on kerrottava, että pelko on lietsottua ja täysin turhaa, eikä irakilainen nuori mies ole sen pelottavampi, kuin suomalainen. On selvää, että sota-alueilta lähteneet ihmiset, jotka joutuvat kuukausikaupalla toimettomina odottelemaan kohtalonsa selviämistä, saattavat olla levottomia, nahistelevia ja hankaliakin, mutta kukapa ei tuollaisessa tilanteessa olisi. Syrjäytyneitä meillä on myös omasta takaa.
Rasismi lisääntyy nyt koko ajan. Sen, että meille on tullut paljon pakolaisia, ei mitenkään pitäisi olla rasismia lisäävä asia – päinvastoin! Kun meille saapuu ihmisiä, jotka ovat kaiken menettäneitä ja pitkästä matkastaan väsyneitä, luulisi jokaisen vähänkin ajattelevan ja välittävän ihmisen ottavan heidät ystävällisesti vastaan ja myös pikku hiljaa tottuvan vähän vieraan näköisten ihmisten kohtaamiseen.
Continue reading “Reija Härkönen: Älkää sanoko, että tapahtuuhan sellaista muissakin maissa”
Migrant Tales’ 2015 Hall of Poor and Sloppy Journalism will be updated separately. To see other examples of opinionated journalism in Finland about cultural diversity, please go to this link.
Aukeavatko suvakin silmät? – (Tamperelainen)
What’s wrong with this community paper editorial? Community papers like Helsingin Uutiset and Vantaa Sanomat are just as bad as other media in spreading bigotry and urban tales about immigrants. They do this for two reasons: they don’t know better and because it’s a good way of boosting their advertising revenues. The editorial by the latest Tamperelainen spewed some pretty harsh rhetoric about asylum seekers. It claimed, among other things, that some asylum seekers are swindlers and that Europe should take a tougher stance against such people. The editorial by the paper’s editor, Karri Kannala, headlined “When will Kumbaya multiculturalists open their eyes,” claims the following: “Speaking of migration is racism, promoting Finnish identity is fascism. You can only talk about multiculturalism if you are a kumbaya multiculturalist, other opinions aren’t welcome.” Bigotry, racism and prejudice still attract big crowds in Finland. They are used by community papers as well and are an example of the worse type of journalism that you can find.
Adam Al-Sawad on rohkea mies koska hän puolustaa meidän arvoja.
“Hän sanoi, ettemme kuulu Suomeen. Minä sanoin, että hän ei kuuluu Suomeen; Suomeen kuuluu asiallinen käyttäytyminen.”
Al-Sawad pyytää meitä lukemaan mitä hän kirjoitti. Lukekaa.
_______________________________________________
It’s disturbing to watch in Finland journalists who maintain and promote urban tales and racism. One of these is Tuomas Enbuske who invited Lenita Airisto to his television talk show to speak about Muslims. When Aristo opens her mouth and gives her opinions about cultural diversity, it’s evident that she still lives is a provincial and stuffy time warp of pre-1990s Finland.
One of the many things she said that exposed her bigotry in a recent talk show with Enbuske was that Muslim women should show more flexible in Finland and take off their veils if they live here.
Airisto, who shamelessly patronizes the Muslim host, Maryam Askar, continuously pats her on the shoulder as if she had such a right.
The patting on the shoulder is a good example of how Airisto sees minorities like Askar as if they were children.
But then she states something that exposes her white privilege to a tee:
“You have come to my country, Finland is my country, and has taken you in with open arms…”
This affirmation, which is highly offensive because Airisto still believes that Finland and the Finns are only white.
What Airisto is doing is denying Askar the right to be different, which is the basis of racism in Finland. Racists and racism is nothing more in Finland than people who have serious issues with people who are different from them.
The closer terrorist acts hit us like the one that befell Paris on Friday, the fewer the arguments nationalist-populist politicians have to defend their Islamophobia. While this may not apply to all of Europe, especially to Eastern European countries like Hungary and Slovakia, it has come as a political blow to anti-immigration politicians in Finland.
What can you say and how would you interpret what Perussuomalaiset (PS)* head, Timo Soini, said after the Paris attacks?
“There is a danger that innocent people, who are escaping terror and terrorism would be related to [the Paris attacks],” he was quoted as saying in the national media.
President Sauli Niinistö and Minister of the Interior Petteri Orpo confirmed what Soini said.
Certainly one reason why Finland’s head of state and its ministers said what they did is because they are not only concerned about Isis-inspired terrorism in Europe but the homegrown kind that could spring from careless Islamophobic statements that could lead to deaths.
Words have consequences and can be easily turned into bullets and bombs.
But should we take Soini’s warning in earnest or does his statement reveal the power struggle in his party between politicians like MEP Jussi Halla-aho and himself?
We mustn’t forget that it was Soini who gave a political voice to xenophobes in his party.
If there is an apology that should be given to migrants and minorities in Finland, it should come from the PS and Soini.
It is ironic but as terrorism gets closer to us the clearer we some of us are able to distinguish between fact and anti-immigration fiction.
* The Finnish name of the Finns Party is the Perussuomalaiset (PS). The English-language 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.
Don Flynn*
What happens when we bring the anxieties of life at the border into the heart of our all our communities? How can we contend with life in a space where identity is constantly checked and people subjected to the question: Why are you really here? MRN director Don Flynn asks this in an article published this month in Soundings, a journal of cultural politics and simultaneously on the website of Eurozine. The full article can be accessed here.
State borders hold a place in the collective imagination of our times in which anxiety plays a central part. It is at borders that the mundane certainties of life dissolve and the simple business of existing becomes a matter of uncertainty. This is the place where a person is forced to confront with the sharpest of intensity the fact that the rights which usually seem as securely available as an intimate personal possession are in fact a by-product of their relationship with the authorities of a state. It is at the border that this relationship can be called into most fundamental question. “I see you are in possession of a British passport madam”, says the immigration officer. “But can you explain to me how you came by this document and why you feel you are entitled to benefit from it?”
This is a disconcerting question that few of us would feel confident of answering (certainly without detailed knowledge of the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981). Most of us are in the happy position of being unlikely to be pushed too far on the matter. But some are not. For example, one young man I assisted with legal advice told me of his anxious hours at Heathrow airport when his claim that he was British-born, if not raised, was treated with deep scepticism. He had been born in Britain, but when he was six years old his Guyanese parents had taken him to their home country after a decade of life in London. Now returning to study at university, his case was only resolved after his lawyer intervened with additional evidence of his personal circumstances.
But if a British citizen can be subjected to this level of stress, how much greater are the anxiety levels for a Filipina nurse questioned about a visa that is probably incomprehensible to her – supplied by an agent back in Manila, who has assured her that it entitles her to come to the UK to accept the offer of a job as a nurse. It is entirely possible that all the deals that have been done – the form-filling, the gathering of supporting documents, the photographing, the English testing, the finger-print taking, and the payment of often very considerable fees, will be picked apart by an assiduous official who routinely finds grounds for doubting that a young woman from northern Santa Teresita could ever have been awarded a degree in health care from the country’s prestigious De La Salle University.
This article is part of the Eurozine focal pointBeyond Fortress Europe.
The scale of the human tragedy afflicting migrants who seek entry to Fortress Europe has increased dramatically of late, triggering a new European debate on laws, borders and human rights. A debate riddled with the complex, often epic, narratives that underlie immediate crisis situations. [more]
At a border you can be mentally stripped naked through rigorous interrogation, before being taken to a small room where you are physically stripped. Diaries will be read and hard drives on laptops scrutinized; while the letter from your cousin offering you a sofa to doss on until you sort out your own place will be the subject of excited interest, in case it reveals a snippet or two about why you are “really” here. When things go wrong for you at a border you lose the right to tell your own story of your life. You see another you being assembled before your very eyes, through which you are presented as a monster of conniving malevolence, capable of any deceit in your efforts to lay your hands on something to which you have no entitlement. The worst thing is that you are invited at each stage to follow the logic of this deconstruction of yourself. By the end you may find yourself morbidly agreeing that, “yes, I can see how you would believe that of me …”.
In short, a border is a place where most of us don’t want to be for any longer than the time it takes to clear the queues at immigration control, pick up your luggage and board the bus to the centre of town. As the border gets further behind you with each passing minute, you return to a world which may have its everyday worries and concerns, but in which there is at least the assurance that, in normal, mundane intercourse, the default presumption is that you are who you say you are.
But nowadays, for increasing numbers of people, this is not what happens. The border is no longer something to be negotiated on the relatively few occasions in life when we make a conscious decision to approach it and hazard all its dangers. Those disconcerting immigration officials are now being given leave to absent themselves from passport checking duties: they are being sent off in minibuses to ply their trade in many of the places where ordinary folk need to go as part of their daily lives. People may now be asked to verify their immigration status when they apply for a tenancy, or to university, or for child support, or even at the tube station.