There are few politicians in Finland who speak out against the far-right threat in Finland. One of these is former Social Democrat Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen, who expressed concern about the issue in a seminar in Helsinki on deportation of Jews to Germany in World War 2, reports Iltalehti.
Lipponen expressed surprise that some parties use “racial hygiene” as part of their political agenda. The concept was exploited by Nazi Germany from 1933 and led to the mass murder of millions of Europeans, especially Jews.
Lipponen does not, however, consider the far right to be a threat to Finland.
While Lipponen may state that far-right ideology isn’t a big threat to Finland, some would disagree. Determining what is a threat to our society depends a lot on your perspective. If you are middle class, white and employed, the far-right wing of a party like the Perussuomalaiset (PS) isn’t a threat.
If, however, you ask certain immigrant groups and visible minorities, the answer may be much different.
Here’s a Suomen Sisu t-shirt that shows the group’s hostility towards cultural diversity.
Lipponen used Saul Schubak, the vice chairman of the National Coalition Party’s youth wing, as an example of how public opinion has hardened in Finland. Schubak wrote on Facebook that “inferior people” should not get child allowance.
The PS is the party in parliament with the biggest number of anti-immigration fanatics, who base their views on racial hygiene, eugenics and cultural myths like ethnic superiority.
If Migrant Tales had the opportunity to draw a cartoon about PS chairman Timo Soini’s relationship with these far-right politicians, the setting would be a concentration camp in World War 2 with some infamous commandants like Rudolf Hoess and Franz Ziereis, hiding behind Soini.
Soini would state with a poker face: “Anti-Semitism isn’t an issue in our party.”
Enrique. I would like you to have dealt more with the reasoning behind Lipponen’s comments.
That is incorrect.
He said that child allowance should be removed from EVERYONE. Please check the facts before reporting them.
Schubak wrote on Facebook that “inferior people” should not receive child allowance.
That is incorrect.
He said that child allowance should be removed from EVERYONE. Please check the facts before reporting them.
He first said “inferior people” then he patched up his mistake by stating that child allowance/all allowances should be removed.
No he didn’t. He said that child allowance supports reproducing of “inferior people”. But he never said that child allowances should be removed only from “inferior people”. He was all the time saying that he would like to see child allowance removed totally from everyone.
It’s false journalism to report something like that.
Recently Demari magazine made similar kind of untruthful claim: Harri Tauriainen from Kemi said that he would like to see couloured criminals to be exported, but Demari changed that a bit and claimed that Tauriainen wants to export all coloured people.
That totally changes the meaning and makes Tauriainen look racist. That kind of journalism is basically lying.
Farang
Who cares the order of his words, the implication is clear. He offers the ‘inferior people’ as a support to his idea that child allowance has negative effects that should be stopped.
This is one of the most dangerous and fascist ideas I have heard in a long time. First, the talk of ‘inferior people’ is straight out of the Nazi handbook. Second, the idea that this morally dispicable view would be a valid excuse for removing a universal benefit that has done more than any other social instrument to reduce child poverty in Finland is absolutely unthinkable. This is just plain ‘evil’ ideology. And I almost never use that word in a political context, but this is just plain wicked.
Don’t you agree that people can be divided in better people and worse people?
Are you really saying that for example rapists, killers and murderers are as good people as anyone else?
Farang
You are an absolute fool if you are going to try to defend this shit. I mean, you are throwing away any sense of decency or moral value when you start to justify political actors referring to people in the terms ‘inferior’. For fuck’s sake, draw the line somewhere, you fucking Nazi.
This is typical Nazi-style political debating, trying to evoke emotional reactions instead of actually using reason or sensible argument. Yes, we all hate rapists (unless they are PS rapists of course, in which case they get to be campaign manager for the party!), but they are equal before the law and are entitled to some dignity, even if they have broken the law. This is a fundamental premise of modern society. We do not classify people as inferior, regardless of their moral, psychological or even neurological failings.
You are confusing two concepts – good and bad people vs. superior and inferior people.
So, no, I am not saying that rapists and murderers are as ‘good’ as anyone else, but I am saying that as a society, they should still be treated with dignity, or else society only perpetrates the same violence that they are condemned for.
Farang
You are so obsessed with dividing peoples, drawing the line among peoples..etc. Throwing everything you can just to justify your extreme right wing views. Your positions are just pathetic.
So, we all agree that people can be divided to more and less valuable people.
So the matter open to debate here is only where do we draw the line. You draw it somewhere, like you just said above. Schubak draw the line somewhere else. And you disagree with Schubak, that’s fair.
Now we can take the discussion to correct course. We don’t have to debate anymore about if it’s ok to divide people, as we already all agree that it is ok. So we are only debating on the basis that division can be done.
You can’t actually know what Schubak meant by “inferior people”. And we need to remember that “inferior people” is not an actual correct translation of the Finnish words “heikompi aines” which Schubak used.
So, if Schubak meant drug abusers and alcohol abusers, then I agree with him by calling them “inferior”. But if he meant just poor people, then I disagree with him.
But since we don’t know what he meant, there is absolutely nothing to complain about. You can’t call him Nazi or fascist only based on your assumptions, which you can’t verify to be correct or not.
Farang
No, go back and read my first reply to you, there is a difference between a value judgement and a judgement about inferiority/superiority. Value judgements are things that we all do everyday, sometimes with prejudice, sometimes based on experiences of individual cases. A judgement about inferiority is something that the Nazis did, Farang.
Saying this does not make it true. Cleary the only thing your fascist brain is open to is shifting the goal posts sufficiently far off the playing field that they no longer have any relevance to what’s actually going on in the field of play. Again, you are twisting the ordinary meaning of words to defend a person who is clearly an evil fascist in the making. Thinking of people as ‘inferior’ is fascist thinking. If you don’t agree, then go read a book on it, because your ignorance is frankly an offense to human dignity.
There are not many options for translating this: inferior/weaker/lesser/lower material. None depart enough from the meaning of inferior to be acceptable.
I don’t call him a Nazi based on purely assumptions, but on the basis of the meaning of words. These are meanings that you absolutely refuse to accept exist. Fine, I’m pretty sure that the average person can make their own mind up and that you Farang are in a tiny minority of people who will do perform linguistic gymnastics in order to defend what are clearly fascist ideas.
Why do you call if fascist, if someone wants to prevent criminals or drug/alcohol abusers from reproducing? To me that’s just pure common sense. If I was in position to make laws, I would immediately set a law that enforces sterilisation for all drug users, alcoholics, rapists and other violent criminals.
Because it is fascism.
Farang
Your idea is as impractical as it is evil. Given the right rate of alcoholism in Finland (29% of men binge drink and 17% of women on a regular basis), one assumes that all these are to be ‘sterilised’. Binge drinking among teenagers in Finland is the second highest in the EU.
Another 18.3% of Finns have used cannabis at least once in their lifetime. That’s not even getting onto the stuff like ecstacy or amphetamin. A violent criminal might be a young kid who gets into a fight after a night on the town, who might not have even started the fight, but who fought back and did some grievious harm – stupid yes, enough to be sterilised? According to you, yes. As for rapists, well the majority of rapes in Finland are done by husbands and go unreported.
As it is, if you were to follow through on your evil scheme, then clearly Finland’s population would decline extremely rapidly.
Forced sterilisations….and you don’t see the link to Fascism? You sound criminally insane!
Now you are drawing your conclusion based on your own (false) assumptions again.
In my books a person who fights back after being assaulted, is not a criminal. It is a disgrace to finnish justice system that people are not allowed to defend themselves.
Farang
Not at all, I’m showing you one alternative where your sick suggestion could result in comparitively ordinary people being sterilised. That was your suggestion, and clearly you haven’t thought it through for a second. Just sounds good with your mates down the pub or in your PS meetings. Get tough on the criminals. You are one of those sick bastards that loves rapists and murderers because you can indulge your sick fantasies of playing God, starting with sterilising people. You are so fucking sick, Farang! Seriously, forced sterilisation? You cannot be for real!
You’re book? So, what you are saying is that if Finland just followed your book in its entirety, it would all work out okay? Funny. It’s almost megalomania, this idea that you have all the answers. Anyhow, that is the reality today, that even if you have been provoked, if you cause serious bodily harm, you will be convicted as a violent criminal. It happens. Interesting to see you naturally come to the defence of a thug. I mean, I don’t agree with that response, but I wouldn’t ask for them to be sterilised.
Well, atleast I have answers. You don’t, you just expect that everything should go as it is going, even when it is obvious to everyone that the whole Europe is going straight towards hell.
Why do you compare provoking with an attack? Provoking, if done verbally is never an excuse for attackin anyone physically.
But when someone attacks you physically, then you should have the right to use violence to defend yourself. That should be obvious to everyone who respects the bodily integrity of human being.
On the contrary, it’s clear that your suggestions are impractical as well as morally sick.
Well, thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think that Europe is facing a difficult time because of the rise of nationalism again and also intolerance and prejudice, which folks like you seem content to perpetuate with no clue about the potential consequences for social cohesion. Nationalism will be the death of all of us in the end if we are not careful.
Well, it’s never that simple. For a start, even if you accept an element of self-defense is acceptable, you still have to decide on what is a proportional or necessary response. Many people are convicted for simply over-reacting. For example, beating someone up for a push is disproportionate, even if the push is totally uncalled for.
Are we not discussing your suggestion to forcibly sterilise large swathes of the Finnish population? People who have a drinking problem, people convicted of violence, men who rape (including their wives), people who take drugs (nearly 20% of Finns). You want to surgically render them incapable of having children, men and women alike! And now you lecture me about respecting bodily integrity… you are some hypocrite!
People should have right to defend themselves as much as the threat is dismissed. Let’s say a person who is much stronger attacks you and you are unable to run away. And if you fight him without any weapons you are most likely to lose because he is stronger. In that kind of situations you should be allowed to use so much force that you put the attacker down, even use lethal force. Person who attacks innocent people should lose all their human rights.
Try to understand the difference between innocent and guilty. Innocent people should have rights to bodily integrity. Guilty people doesn’t.
Farang
This is beer fog talking. Didn’t you know that almost all perpetrators of violence believe themselves to be innocent? By giving them a ‘defence’, you are much more likely to encourage this kind of violence than to curb it.
And no, a person who commits a crime should not lose all their human rights. Does that include their right to life? Really, Farang, you haven’t stopped to think of the consequences for the words that come out of your mouth, have you!
In the last couple of years that I have following this blog, this is about the most sinister and obviously evil statement I have seen made on here by a commentator. Not only do you contradict your earlier statement about respecting the rights of people’s bodily integrity, you fall behind the notion that another person’s ‘guilt’ is enough justification for you to invade their bodily integrity to the point of rendering them incapable of having children. That is about as Nazi as it gets. It’s really only one step away from concentration camps, Farang, and if you cannot see that, then you are involved in some dark shit, man!
I don’t understand how you could be in so defensive for criminals who rape and murder people. If person makes a willinful choice to violently attack fellow human being and assaults, rapes or kills him/her, why would you still want to give him same rights than for innocent people?
In my opinion this world would be better place if we had no criminals and violence. It’s very disturbing that you think otherwise. To you the rights of a criminal are more important than the safety of innocent people.
Farang
That’s just the easy way out for you, isn’t it – someone who defends everyone’s right to dignity is defending murders and rapists. I don’t care how evil these people are, we are not made into a better society by torturing or abusing these people. We have a court system in place and punishments that target specific freedoms or penalties, and that is enough. We simply do not need to dehumanise these people and then on that basis dream up inhumane punishments.
Maybe this argument is just too nuanced for you to follow. Respecting people’s right to dignity is not the same as saying he has exactly the same rights as an innocent person. Clearly if these people are imprisoned, then their right to liberty is taken away. The point is that we target very specific rights and the rights that remain seek to maintain a level of dignity.
The other issue that you are not dealing with is rehabilitiation. You seem to write these people off, regardless of circumstances. Some of these people can and are rehabilitated into society after committing crimes. Some are not. While society treats these individuals with dignity, I would suggest that there are less barriers to rehabilitation.
And finally, exactly how does sterilising a murderer or a rapist help society? There is no reason to think that these actions are inheritable behaviour, and neither will they have any effect on the propensity to reoffend assuming they re-enter society at a later stage. In fact, it’s possible that you close one avenue to proper reintegration into society by way of a family, particularly in the case of young offenders.
Everything about your suggestion is either counter-productive to the justice system, impractical, or simply morally unjustifiable.
Yeah, right. Is this the best you can do to counter my arguments? To present obvious lies about my opinions? I guess that means you are clearly losing this argument.
Mark, do you agree with this:
http://www.iltasanomat.fi/kotimaa/art-1288516436723.html
Do you think it is ok to set free a man who has brutally strangled and stabbed a little 5-year old girl to death?
It is not my judgement to say if this particular man has been rehabilitated or what the circumstances of the murder were. I simply cannot say if I agree or disagree with this individual case.
Do I think that people who do terrible things can be rehabilitated? The answer is yes. Is it always true? Clearly not. Is the safety of the public the highest priority? Yes. Is it always right to keep murderers locked up for the rest of their lives? Not always, no. If this was a mother committing a murder of her children after post-natal depression, there might be more sympathy towards the perpetrator, and there is even a chance she might not go to prison. Do men suffer equally debilitating depression? Yes. Would a man deserve less understanding just because he’s a man? No. Will he get less understanding because he’s a man? Probably. Does it make the case any less tragic? Of course not. Justice is clearly not a topic that you can decide on in a conversation down the pub.
Your obvious intention is to find what appears to be the most heinous crime and to use this as an emotional trigger to justify your pretty despicable suggestion that criminals, drug users, people with drinking problems, and rapists should be sterilised.
You are not helping your case by trying to evoke extreme emotional disgust and then using that disgust to justify a totally pointless violation of that person’s bodily integrity. In the case of murderers, it’s clear that reducing their freedom and maintaining public safety is the key priority.
But beyond that, there is simply no practical or moral justification for making them guinea pigs for your eugenic experiments, Farang.
Norway has one of the most rehabilitation-oriented justice systems in the world, though some there have long called for tougher sentences. But, the facts speak for themselves: It has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, has one of the lowest rates of incarceration and one of the lowest rates of re-offending (20%).
I know you will talk about whether those 20% will go on to commit violent crime or murder, but then you are forgetting the first statistic – Norway is one of the safest countries in the world.