The A2 islam-ilta television debate Tuesday will reveal once again white Finnish ethnocentrism, how poorly we know our laws and, what’s important, how poorly we accept people who are different from us. Is the Finnish media giving once again racists inflated respectability and importance?
Will the A2 debate improve or undermine the situation of Muslims in Finland?
How many immigrants, or Finnish Muslims, won’t get hired tomorrow because of the program? How many will be attacked physically and psychologically? How many viewers’ Islamophobia and bravado will the program reinforce? How much self-esteem will it chip away from a child or adolescent who goes to school tomorrow and gets bullied because of his or her ethnic or religious background?
Why should anyone justify his or her religion and right to live in Finland? Why should we give a forum to those who demand such justifications? It’s absurd.
Would we want to have a debate on television why women should go back to the kitchen and serve men?
What can you expect from YLE if the nature of the beast is what it is? How does Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen give a sense of security to minorities in Finland when she openly victimizes and labels non-Christians, plays down ethnic profiling by the police, considers homosexuality to be an illness and drags her feet on family reunification?
Sometimes you wonder about Räsänen’s and that of other Finns’ statements. But mark my words, it’s the face of intolerance staring right back at us loud and clear.
Our problem is acknowledge it as such.
I’m actually quite surprised you did not like the idea of this program. Isn’t it a good thing people are discussing about the subject from multiple point of views? You have been talking years that immigrants/minorities should join more actively to the discussions and have more media visibility.
I do not expect much from this show, but I wouldn’t say this is about justifying people’s religion. It is about discussing and maybe even breaking some stereotypes. Some of the views might be extreme, but if you remember A2’s homoilta, those extreme views actually damaged the people who were against homosexuality. Thousands of people resigned from a church as a protest.
So Joonas,
It is about discussing and maybe even breaking some stereotypes-
Discussing for ur media and TV is necessary and good but for me is forbidden even on MT?yes?
Media should be free, oh this is freedom of speech, its good, useful
Really ?
hate speech in media is useful but my freedom on net is
WOW?????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Not waiting for answer, ur answers all are similar, bore bore
First of all, multiple lines of question marks doesn’t reinforce your message. Please, stick with one, if you can.
If you can find any message from me where I have forbidden you expressing your opinion, please let me know – I’m certain you can’t find even one. Instead I have mentioned you multiple times, that you are entitled to your opinions and writings, but it does not mean everybody should agree with you or even accept the things you say.
People are discussing in MT and are having differing opinions about various subjects. Same things goes to media and TV, except those source of information catches more people than MT.
Enrique, if you denounce Päivi Räsänen, when she says that homosexuality as illness, why don’t you don’t denounce Muslims who say that homosexuals (or persons who commit homosexual acts) should be executed?
For the record, I think all religions are false, but how can you justify religious views that homosexuals should be executed? As far as I am concerned, it is impossible to justify that kind of religious views and if Muslims want to be accepted as a true members of this society, they should denounce sharia laws with that kind of extremism.
What a typically disgusting and Islamaphobic comment from our resident PS Voter. For a start, show me a Muslim in the public sphere in Finland who calls for homosexuals to be executed and I’ll condemn them.
However, you and I both know there aren’t any.
Räsänen on the other hand is a public figure, does hold a very high public office, and is in the habit of applying her strict conservatism even in situations where it is not within her mandate to do so. She is a fair target for heavy criticism.
If I see you writing on this blog again saying or even implying that we justify religious views that homosexuals will be executed, I will ban you from this site permanently. I will not tolerate that kind of vile and lying propaganda on this blog.
Likewise, presenting Muslims or the Muslim religion in this way as extremists is a vile and gross violation of their rights to practice freedom of religion in this country, PS voter, and if you were writing under your own name, there is a very good chance that you would be prosecuted for hate speech. So, consider this your first and last warning. This site is not a platform for you to peddle your hate speech.
If you want to discuss homosexuality and Islam, do so in a manner that makes it clear that Muslims in Finland are not calling for gays to be executed.
Don’t you think that the A2 islam-ilta was in the public sphere? Imam there said that the punishment for homosexuals caught having sex by four witnesses is execution.
As a gay and a person who knows Finnish Muslims and knows something about the situation and treatment of gays in many Muslim countries, I think I know quite a deal about these issues. I have spoken with gays who have Muslim background, both in Finland and with persons who live in Muslim countries, even with some who have lost their friends because persecution against homosexuals. Have you done that?
PS Voter
I haven’t seen the program yet, and I will comment when I do. But if it is as you say, I will certainly condemn it. But neither will I present it as the views of all Muslims in Finland, because it clearly isn’t. Both Albania and Bosnia, countries with high Muslim populations do not practice capital punishment.
And yet what you are not presenting anything other than prejudices. Not only that, but your experience of other countries is no doubt limited to reading stories on the Internet from selective media outlets. And by the way, I’m bisexual, so you don’t have a monopoly on being interested in this topic from the point of view of gay rights.
I have no problem with you defending the rights of gays and for criticising the stand of different religious groups. But I do object to you presenting this as a specifically Muslim problem and peddling the idea that killing gays is just normal stuff for Muslims. You are probably too young to remember the persecution of gays from within Europe’s own domestic populations.
How fucking ironic that you would want to replace on form of vile prejudice, against gays, with another, against Muslims! Seems like you’ve learnt zilch from being part of a discriminated against minority!
PS Voter
Actually, in some countries, the problem is not the ‘four witnesses’, but the forced confessions, which also form a basis for punishments.
The key in winning a debate here within Islam is to stress the provisions in Islamic law for the path of ‘forgiveness’ and the very high status that Mohammed gave to this as a principle of justice.
Indeed, of the three forms of response to grave violations, this was always seen as the highest form. On YleMondo this morning, an Afghanistan man whose two brothers were murdered by a militia man who later joined the Taliban, was unhappy because there was no justice, because the man had bought off the judiciary with gifts. This illustrates two things that are relevant – that people want justice and that in conflict weary zones, this is extremely difficult to find, and also that the laws in Islam emerged with a hard face and a soft face, both of which were necessary to get any kind of progress – any legal system that promotes only forgiveness will fall flat. Even the ‘christian-based’ legal systems of the West still have their hard faces too, entailing various forms of punishment, many of them brutal, including life-time incarceration, which given the high suicide rate in prisons, is often effectively a death sentence. This isn’t to justify corporal punishment or persecution of adulterers or gays, but rather to recognise that our justice systems are closer than some people seem to imagine. Indeed, in the Christian context, Jesus suggested that the old Mosaic law to ‘put unto death’ anyone that disrespected their parents should be upheld, and indeed, in many parts of the world, Christians have called for or carried out beatings, executions, and long imprisonments for gay people. But then in many parts of the world, both Christians and Muslims have learned to ignore those kinds of extremism in their holy texts.
In other words, this is not specifically an issue of one religion, but of the Western developed world pushing ever forward in protecting the rights of individuals and redefining what it means to commit a crime ‘against the community’, which is the basis also of Islamic Sharia.
Mohammed taught that in respect of justice, that judges must “Avoid (the maximum) penalty (hudud) on the account of ambiguity (shubuhat).” The ambiguity in this situation is that homosexuality harms society.
Moreover, the issue of the death penalty itself still a matter the Western world is working on. In many states in the USA, it is legal and heavily supported, so the issue is not the death penalty itself, but what constitutes crimes. The argument for corporal punishment in Islam is to save lives by giving a powerful deterrent to the taking of life.
The issue for homosexuals fighting for rights against any of the old creeds is changing the notion that homosexuality is a threat to society. In olden days, sex was far more ritualised and the ‘creating of life’ was seen as something fundamentally holy. The fear was that homosexual acts somehow offended that ‘sacred procreation’ that we had been ‘given’. The religicising of sex has always been problematic, but inevitable, given how powerful sexual urges are. Moreover, when the monotheistic religions first had to compete against the fertility religions of old, making sex somehow sacred and specific to that monotheistic God was also important, as was attaching a degree of guilt as a form of control. While the practices of old fertility religions abounded, it was very difficult for a new monotheism to fight that appeal. So, guilt and fear appear to have become the chosen weapons of monotheism.
But this illustrates well the problems of all major religions and their place in today’s society – religion as a means of social control must give way to religion as a practice of conscience. The problem is that some people dream the world will be a better place if only everyone followed the same ethical code as them. Indeed, PS Voter, you appear to have exactly the same belief in regard to religion: you think the world would be better without it and if people followed your own secular code.
Your moral understanding hasn’t really penetrated beyond that fundamental limitation of self-bias: if only the world was like me! As long as people make the mistake of extending their own moral force as a form of constitution for the whole of the rest of society, then the real protection of society, as an embodiment of diversity, is undermined, by that diversity and the opposition to it! And as diversity is as natural as the air we breathe, we are stuck in a hole of social antagonisms. But then even that Eutopia I present is itself another form of ‘if only everyone valued and understood diversity’. At some point, we have to get off our arses, philosophically speaking, and stop this stupid game of ‘if only’, and actually get down to discussing the issues and looking for the way to protect society AND individuals within society from the potential excesses and injustices that happen.
So, my question to you is this, PS Voter, what is your answer to this problem of gay rights in regard to religious people? Do you fight to get rid of religion or deny it any form of manifestation? Or do you attempt to challenge it, and if so how? Many Muslims living in Western countries are deeply influenced by the value systems of those countries and oppose the more extreme interpretations of Sharia as a matter of course. Is that a way forward? Or do we give a high public platform to the extremists on all ends of society and hope that somehow they will provide us with a way forward?
I am personally completely opposed to any form of corporal punishment, so the idea that I defend those who advocate it is false. So don’t put up any straw men on that point. Second, I do not oppose Islam or Christianity as religions because I have different ideas than them about particular issues. However, I do oppose extremism in both religions. I do advocate a secular state. I recognise that in harsh environments, then it is a fact of life that only harsh forms of justice system appear to give any basis of any kind of justice. So, how to push society’s away from that harshness?
That is the longer-term objective, in my view, the one that ultimately softens justice and many people’s prejudices and violent self-interest.
And second of all, u can ignoring all question marks and zoom on one please don’t feel allergy with my question marks
I am not on MT for acceptance from you or someone else , is there a benefit for me if you ( u in general) accept my ideas??? or my real stories? NO
No/one can make a medicine on my wounds.
However i am free too, no/one can controlling me.
I wouldn’t want to make my life to depend on that kind of argument which I see mostly as wishful thinking. That argument (like some slightly similar arguments that are presented to Christians) doesn’t convince even me and I am pretty sure that it won’t persuade most of those Muslim fundamentalists, who sentence homosexuals to death or even execute them even without trial, like in Iraq at the moment. I am sure that the countless number of homosexuals, who have been executed in countries like Iraq or Iran, have tried to plead in all kinds of ways to spare their life, but they have still ended up getting killed in horrible ways.
BTW, I feel that great injustice has been made to me, when you threatened to ban me from this site, by saying that it is first and last warning to me. That threat makes me too scared to answer the rest of your long message, because I am afraid to say anything that might upset you and then ban me, even when I have tried to behave correctly — even when persons here have told lies about me and behaved quite rudely towards me. And on the other hand, I don’t think that honest discussion can be always just agreeing with other and never saying anything opposite.
I don’t think my message merited so extreme reaction, especially as I have tried now and before behave properly, not just with the kind of language that I use here, but by defending and helping immigrants when I have felt it is right thing to do and I have also been willing to condemn immigration critics/persons who are against immigrants, when I feel that they have went too far. Besides, usually there has been more than one warning, so why my message received so extreme reaction?
I suspect that one reason for that extreme reaction might be communication problem. I am not sure if I am allowed even clarify myself, but when I said “how can you justify”, I wasn’t referring to Enrique or even Migrant Tales. Maybe it would have been clearer, if I had written “how can anybody justify” or “Surely nobody can justify”. However, I feel that even if you don’t believe that this clarified version was my original intent, I feel that is was far too extreme reaction, especially as I see that many persons on this site have been allowed to continue slandering against Finns or immigrants much longer and with much stronger language than I used.
Again, you are wrong about me. I have also had “correspondence” using Internet, with gays in Muslim countries and also met many face to face. I have even lived with a gay from Muslim country for years.
The situation of bisexuals in Muslim countries is much easier. They can always choose limit themselves to heterosexual side of their lives and still find love and pleasing sex. Gays don’t have that liberty.
And even living in celibacy isn’t enough for gays in some of those countries. For example in Iraq, Muslim anti-gay activists have warned single men, who are older than typical men who get married and given for example one month time to get married to opposite sex, or they will be kidnapped and brutally killed.
I don’t think that gays have done much if any physical attacks against Muslims or any other religions or ethnic groups. However, gays have been victims of violence and constant fear in many places. And gays cannot even choose not to be gays, unlike religious persons, who can change their religion in countries with freedom of religion.
PS Voter
This is just so simple, either you learnt from the persecution and defamation of gays and lesbians as a population or you have not. The fact that you are carrying out exactly the same kind of vile campaign against Muslims tells me very much that you have not learnt a damn thing that was useful. I have no problem with you fighting for the rights of gay Muslims, and I do think that for the more conservative elements in both Christianity and Islam, it is a battle to defend the basic rights of gay people, but to make this ABOUT THE RELIGION specifically and to mix it up with the immigration debate is a huge, huge mistake from a human rights perspective! Otherwise, you and I would be very much on the same side of this debate.
How is PS voter,hi
In Iran law support gays, they are human beings like others.
U have no information about them in my country.
And it was not easy for me to changing my religion to a way, was so hard.
Well, here is just one ILGA (= International Lesbian, Gay, Trans and Intersex Association) article, which is eight yeards old. I have heard that the execution of gays may have slowed down (in Iraq it is the opposite way around since the fall of Saddam), but they still continue, like floggings, violent attacks etc:
http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/688
…
Fact: Iran executes lesbians and gays. The Iranian government has executed an estimated 4,000 LGBT people since 1979.
Fact: The Iranian government often pins false charges on the victims of its murderous policies in order to discredit them and discourage public protests.
…
I haven’t visited Iran, but I trust multiple Iranian gays and human right organizations more than you, about the situation of gays in Iran. Some of them have managed to get refugee status because of their sexual orientation in western countries and escape Iran for good.
In which country did this happen? And did that country have freedom of religion?
When I wanted to get rid of Lutheran church membership in Finland, I just marched to their office and filled short form. Now you can do that even on Internet. Having said that, it is morally wrong that I was registered as a member of the church in first place, even though I have never in my life have expressed any wish to belong any religious group.
PS voter,
I start my comment to u with a hi
Cant u say a hi in back, what kind of human rights u r working on if u hate to speak with a hi?
I dont trust in u and ur links too
Now am not waiting for ur respond, i am not searchin hateful responds
I am not fighting just for rights of gay Muslims (although I prefer to talk about gays with Muslim background, because in reality, many of them are extremely secular or atheists, like myself), but for the rights and future of all gays, which I feel is quite bleak.
Do you think that it is possible/allowed to speak at all about the persecution and violence against gays in the context of religion or immigration, or is is completely forbidden? If it is allowed, have you or somebody else here on Migrant Tales written in a manner which would provide examples that what kind of discussion is allowed?
In my opinion, it is quite difficult or even impossible to speak about the persecution towards gays, if you cannot speak how religions are directly or indirectly behind most of this hatred and violence. And in my opinion, when we have criminalized agitation towards violence, that should also include religious texts (including Bible) and speech towards gays. I don’t think religions should have any more freedom to spread hatred or even orders to kill gays than any other organizations or persons.
PS Voter
‘Forbidden’ is a stupid and loaded word that implies anyone suggesting caution is on the side of ‘censorship’, or worse, a religious extremist. There are perfectly reasonable secular arguments for being cautious about combining the issue of gay rights and immigration. But my question to you is why do they have to be considered together? Once an immigrant is settled in this country, then any view they have on gay rights is part of the ‘internal’ debate, and it’s not like there aren’t going to be plenty of people in the native population who don’t object to gay rights on absolutely similar grounds. So, it’s not actually relevant to their status as immigrants. After all, as much as I dislike the views of people who would deny rights to gays, I do respect their right to have an opinion on the matter.
I think you should explain to me why it’s relevant to immigration.
Well, now you are being silly. You are discussing it here and now in the comments. The only thing you must be careful of is that you don’t use this freedom here as a platform for hate speech against Muslims, which I’m assuming you are smart enough to avoid doing, and also smart enough to realise you don’t have to resort to in order to have an open and comprehensive discussion of this matter.
I agree, but why only focus on the ‘foreign’ religion when the domestic one is equally a barrier? That is the issue and the danger. This ‘debate’ happens in such a way that it becomes just another stick to beat Muslims with´, or even as a means of suggesting that you would discriminate against Muslims in terms of immigration, which is absolutely contrary to human rights legislation.
There are no special reasons to treat the problem of intolerance in Islam any different to how you treat it in Christianity. If you suggest banning Muslims from immigration, then you should also be suggest banning Christians. So why aren’t you? While that would at least remove the serious concern that this is just a manifestation of Islamaphobia for the vast majority of people arguing about this, I would still oppose such a suggestion as it discriminates against people very dubiously on the grounds of religion.
You should be very careful who your bedfellows and allies are in this debate, PS Voter – the old adage of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ has led to some horrible compromises in the course of history.
I am very sympathetic to your view on this. But then again, this issue cannot be allowed to be used as a stick to beat religious people with either, otherwise you have replaced one form of persecution with another. But there may well be some room for tightening up hate speech laws to better protect gays and lesbians from the kind of religious-inspired ‘hate speech’ directed at them. The key thing though is avoiding a polarisation and escalation of these tensions. At some point we have to accept the ‘unhappy status quo’, where not all citizens will be happy with what the ‘others’ are free to do, but that the core freedoms are protected.
If someone orders someone to be killed, I would have thought that has already broken specific laws – unless by that ‘order’ you mean that it is a part of a historical text. In that situation, as long as the order is not ‘reinstituted’ through the words of an individual, they can be allowed to stand as historical artifacts like any other.
As an example, though, of a process whereby progress can be made, Turkey recently instigated a revisionist process of sorting through the Islamic Hadith and removing those that are offensive to women and their status in society. While this move was open to the criticism of the state trying to control religion, it does show that Islam now and previously is capable of debating and even modifying elements of its doctrine to better fit with the times in which Muslims live. I know the outstanding criticism is that Islam needs a full-on reformation process, led from within, but the reality is that such a process has already begun and is ongoing – Muslims in Western countries already lean to the moderate interpretations and practice of Islam.
The irony is that if anything can derail that modernisation in Europe or the US, it is Islamaphobia, which will leave many Muslims feeling vilified and misunderstood, which will lead to them seeking new forms of ‘advocacy’ and even retribution – a process that typically benefits the extremists and can lead to a slow process of radicalisation, and even an eventual abandonment of modernism.
What was wrong with my comment about Islam?
Is that a taboo word again?
What is my right on MT, i need to know????If i have any let me know please.
I am X Muslim and it is me who knows about Islam more than any one on this blog.
It seems that censorship and threats to ban people from this site permanently, make frank discussion difficult if not impossible. Please, let Brave know my e-mail address so that she can e-mail if she has something to say that you don’t think is proper to publish on this site. I am pretty thick skinned.
Brave, I recommend that you create a new free e-mail address to contact me, if you are afraid to reveal your ordinary e-mail address to me. Although I am not a person you should have to fear, it is good idea to avoid giving your main e-mail address to persons you do not trust.
And let me be clear: I don’t particularly like you or other persons on this site (Except Abdi/Abdulah, who has shown the kind of human “face” that has evoked sympathy at least in me. Abdi seems to be that kind of person I would like to know better, but unfortunately he hasn’t posted anything for long time and I miss him). Having said that, you shouldn’t have any reason to be afraid of me.
I have watched some of your previous posts or comments and disagreed with many issues in them. However, I have desisted my urges to answer to them, because of recent loss of your parents. I haven’t wanted to bother you while you are grieving.
You aren’t the only person who have lost close persons because of death. As we grow older, all or almost all of us will lose close persons during our lives. Every case, of course, is a bit different. But I think I know enough to say that there is probably nothing I could say to make you feel better about the situation, so I will not even try say anything comforting as it might just sound condescending, inane or worse.
BTW, what has happened to Abdi’s texts? I tried googling some of them, but for example on these pages, the text is missing:
http://www.migranttales.net/somali-finn-abdulah-living-in-no-mans-land-part-i/abdi/
http://www.migranttales.net/somali-finn-abdulah-living-in-no-mans-land-part-2/abdi-2/
PS Voter
That’s the last time I discuss anything with you! If you cannot even see us a ‘human’…. just unbelievable!
PS Voter
And for the record, there is no censorship on this site – we are required by law to remove hate speech from this site if it is published. When people start on that, they get a warning, which is often ignored, and then they get suspended for one month. If they continue in the same vein after that, it’s a permanent ban. Otherwise, NOTHING is censored. Only pricks like you though decide to make mischief by claiming that’s what happens. But you’ve been around the site a couple of months, so what the do you know!
It seems that c-ship and threats to ban people from this site permanently, make frank discussion difficult if not impossible. Please, let Brave know my e-mail address so that she can e-mail if she has something to say that you don’t think is proper to publish on this site. I am pretty thick skinned.
Brave, I recommend that you create a new free e-mail address to contact me, if you are afraid to reveal your ordinary e-mail address to me. Although I am not a person you should have to fear, it is good idea to avoid giving your main e-mail address to persons you do not trust.
And let me be clear: I don’t particularly like you or other persons on this site (Except Abdi/Abdulah, who has shown the kind of human “face” that has evoked sympathy at least in me. Abdi seems to be that kind of person I would like to know better, but unfortunately he hasn’t posted anything for long time and I miss him). Having said that, you shouldn’t have any reason to be afraid of me.
I have watched some of your previous posts or comments and disagreed with many issues in them. However, I have desisted my urges to answer to them, because of recent loss of your parents. I haven’t wanted to bother you while you are grieving.
You aren’t the only person who have lost close persons. As we grow older, all or almost all of us will lose close persons. Every case, of course, is a bit different. But I think I know enough to say that there is probably nothing I could say to make you feel better about the situation, so I will not even try say anything comforting as it might just sound condescending, inane or worse.
BTW, what has happened to Abdi’s texts? I tried googling some of them, but for example on these pages, the text is missing:
PS,
I was speaking about Islam, but Islam is a taboo word like Finns and racist.
I am not agree with wild roles and am not agree with Islam an di know this religion very well.
I am not agree with Imam,,, oh Imam is a tabooo word too
……
Thanks PS for u telling me frankly u dont like me, even i knew this and of course i know u hate me but just now u dont want use this word against me, if u used it it could not bothering me because was frankly.
Why u want get in contact with a person u hate her?
Hate is like a rain on me on MT
Hi! Now that word has been said. I hope that makes you happier.
I think it is healthy skepticism not to trust all persons. And reasonable amount of skepticism is always good idea and one of the reasons why I try to start frank discussion about immigration, multiculturalism etc. I guess somebody from Migrant Tales administrators could check the link I gave and see that it is legitimate and contains the text I quoted. You don’t have to click the link yourself, if you don’t want to. I just provided it as source for my quotes, if somebody wants to verify that I didn’t write it myself and that is comes from well informed source.
No nothing can make me happy, my happiness got the end in Finland.
Some one give me a list of taboo words that we can not use it in Finland?
My self know some
Islam
Finns
Racism
Racist
Muslim
Imam
Freedom dear when taboo came on planet earth
Freedom where is ur address?
I didn’t say that I hate you. I said that: “I don’t particularly like you or other persons on this site”, with the exception of D4R/Abdi/Abdulah, who seems to be friendly person. What I mean by that is that I don’t consider you or most other persons on this site as my friends, but that doesn’t mean that I hate you. I said that because I don’t want to give wrong impression about my intentions. Allthough I am curious to find out what is it what you would like to tell me, but I am not pretending to be your friend. And I think that the fact that I have shown respect to you be declining to argue with you about many things while you are griefing, shows that I don’t hate you.
I have come to this site to have frank discussion about my concerns that I have and hoped we could have some kind of dialogue like adult persons despite different views. All of us have different views about politics and some other issues, but I don’t think it should prevent having dialogue. My hope is I could exchange opinions and arguments with persons who don’t share my views and we could influence each others views, when we are willing to discus about things that trouble us.
On Migrant Tales, it is often emphasized that integration of immigrants should be two way road. Finns should start to follow some customs of the immigrants and immigrants should start to follow some customs of Finns. If this is the case, shouldn’t the same apply to different political opinions as well? I am convinced that all of us have something to learn from eachother and I hope that others would share my vision. I am sure there are things I am wrong about, but I am equally sure that there are things other persons on this site are wrong about. And if we always talk with just persons who share all of your views, it is difficult to find and correct our mistakes.
If we had deeper discussions I am sure that we would also find things that are common to us. For example, despite different religious or ethnic backgrounds, you can find same personality types. And I admit that I am more critical towards immigration than many other writers on this site. However, it is not because I am bad or evil person, but because I have my own concerns that have shaped my thinking. In reality I am quite pleasant person who has helped more immigrants than most Finns or in some cases even more than the relatives of immigrants. And I have helped quite many native Finns as well, in many ways. What also gives some idea about my personality is that one person jokingly said about me that I should receive Nobel peace price for being so patient with difficult persons.
One reason why I don’t like most persons on this site (not even persons who seem to share many of my political views) is the fact that we simply haven’t had deep discussions with eachother, so that I would know the persons better. Questions don’t get answered, there is constant fear of getting banned etc which makes difficult to have more than quite superficial discussion. One other reason is that it is not very nice feeling that quite often, when I have made sincerely some good will gestures, some persons have figuratively speaking “spit on my face”. For example, once I praised a writing of Enrique about Iraq war and also very personal and touching writing by D4R about his many experiences of getting bullied in school (I made that comment under the writing titled: “Growing up in Finland as an immigrant – a personal story!”). I found both of those writings quite good and said it, but my good will gesture was greeted by Mark with the following words: “Fuck me, you are one patronising prick!”. I found that depressing.
I don’t hate you and even if I hated you, I would probably still be curious to know what you wanted to say to me.
PS Voter
You are a patronising prick. You came on the site, took two articles and dismissed everything else as of no value without ANY discussion. The irony of course is that even though you said you liked D4R’s article on racial bullying, you tried to dismiss it as ONLY BULLYING and completely dismissed the racial element. You are not a friend of Migrant Tales, PS Voter. Not at all. You can try to split the community here by throwing your praise around selectively, but fuck you. people work hard here to highlight a great many important and difficult issues facing immigrants, and if you don’t show any sign of understanding that, then you will be treated with the contempt you deserve. You sign up here as PS Voter and then expect some kind of fucking free ride into dialogue, AND after what that party has done to stir the shit pile in Finland. Your lack of perspective on these issues from the point of view of immigrants is breathtaking. And YES, for that reason, you coming here to tell us what is ‘good’ about this site is fucking patronising!!!!
Good day PS voter,
you can find my comment here
http://www.migranttales.net/a2-islam-debate-were-a-very-tolerant-society-but/
……….
Why you chose PS voter for a nickname,because this name is exactly against me and this name broken my wishes and hope, this name was against my parents, i could not see my parents because this name blamed me and punished me for this name thought my parents want come here for social welfare, sigh sigh
…..
Okay i understood perfectly ur long comment, i accept that you dont hate me, also u talked with your soul and its good.
…..
You dont need my e.mail address because you told
( but I am not pretending to be your friend.)
However again thanks for you told me directly that.
I wish you a great time on MT with every one and all.
I agree that you are required to remove hate speech, but I disagree with many other things you said. For example, you said my that it was my first and last warning and then I will get permanently banned. And the reason you gave, wasn’t even for spreading hate speech. I still hope that it was some kind of communication problem between us and asked for clarification or perhaps some kind impulse reaction that you would lift that threat away, but I received no answer for my question about my question about possible communication problem. That creates atmosphere of banning and/or censorship, which is something Brace has complained more than me. That makes communication quite difficult if not impossible, when you have to try to watch every small nuance of my words, in order not to offend even by mistake and get banned — especially as the rules aren’t very clear and sometimes seem at least somewhat arbitrary. And as far as I know, I have behaved quite politely.
And I have been on this site far longer than just couple of months. With quick Google search I found a comment by me, which was over year old, and that might not have been my first message. And I have been following this site even before I registered and wrote my first message.
I didn’t say that I cannot see you as human. I said that only D4R/Abdi/Abdulah has shown: “the kind of human “face” that has evoked sympathy at least in me”. I cannot understand how you misread my messages and/or intentions so wrong.
What I mean by that is that he has shared some personal and quite touching things about his life and behaved in friendly way. Most other persons just talk with very superficial level and often behave pretentiously, so that you don’t really get to know them and/or don’t behave friendly. When you tell touching and personal stories about your life and behave in a friendly manner, that tends to evoke sympathy in other persons — including me.
Please read my message more carefully. I didn’t say that everything else had no value. What I said was that during short time period there was two good writings and that I hoped that the trend continues and we will see more good articles appearing. I didn’t say that there wasn’t ever good writings before, but it is just uncommon to see two so good writings to appear within so short time period.
I think we already discussed this on the comments of the original writing. I just disagreed with the interpretation that racial bullying isn’t a form of bullying, but something else. I said that what he had to endure, seemed worse than typical bullying cases, but on the other hand there are sometimes even worse bullying cases without any racial element (I also provided some examples how bad and damaging bullying can be even without any racial element, which might also give some kind of insight of how to cope/live/try recover from so horrible experiences). I don’t think my opinion is unjustified, even if some others might disagree.
Bullying is bullying and bullying can happen because of racist reasons, homophobia, being from too poor/rich family, being shy, being good at school, having wrong kind of clothes etc — or even without any reason at all. And for example gays can sometimes be even in worse position than victims of racial bullying, if they have to also fear rejection or even violence at home. I don’t think that the cause for bullying necessarily determines how bad the bullying gets, although it is probably not completely random either.
And I would like to still recommend trying the thing that I originally suggested.:
“I have one suggestion for all persons with immigrant background. Maybe persons with immigrant backgrounds could organize visits to school in order to get more understanding. SETA, which is a organization for GLBT rights, organizes that kind of visits to schools to increase acceptance towards gays. I have never seen it in practice, but I think that the same model might be useful for people from immigrant background as well. And instead of just preaching, there should be efforts for real dialogue.”
As you can see, I am strong believer in dialogue. And as I said, I have never seen in practice any of those SETA visits. However, what I saw during the time I was at school, was a demonstration about the damage school bullying can cause, even if the intention of the bullyers wasn’t as extreme. There were some pictures, talk about causes how physical bullying had caused even loss of live in some cases etc. I think that demonstration was quite effective.
I chose this nickname to be honest about my political opinions instead of pretending to be something that I am not. I think it is good idea to be honest. And if we should respect moderate voices within all religions, I think we should respect moderate voices within all political parties as well.
You have added nothing to these debates, PS Voter, for all that you have a high opinion of yourself. And you still actually dismissed the whole point of D4R’s article. You are a joke, mate!
PS Voter
Bullshit. I have worked with some of Finland’s best exponents of dialogue, real dialogue in difficult social circumstances dealing with difficult and intractable social problems and what you offer is completely fake. Dialogue starts with real listening, not with coming here and telling everyone how everything REALLY IS, writing your own reality and ideas on everyone else with absolutely no validation of the views expressed.
I shouldn’t say any more. Your comment earlier tonight was the last straw for me and much along the same lines as your first comments here – you don’t really see the ‘human face’ of the people writing here – and yet you have the cheek to tell us you are seeking dialogue – how much more of a contradiction can you be!
You are an idiot if you think coming to this blog as PS Voter is the correct way to approach immigrants if you are truly trying to understand their perspective – but of course, you came here, took that stupid moniker and then told one of our posters that his experience of racial bullying wasn’t really racial bullying, but just bullying. And you call that dialogue.
If I remember correctly, didn’t I call you PS Joker within the first few comments? I think I had it just about right!
PS Voter
You manipulative, lying toad! You didn’t just comment that day on what articles you liked. No, how did you characterise the other writings at the time? I’ll remind you – ‘meaningless whinings’. That was the comment that really pissed me off!
So, that is how you go about creating dialogue, you gormless twit?
In the three days leading up to D4R’s story, which I actually posted on Migrant Tales by the way, there was a story on the No hate speech movement initiated by the Council of Europe, a story on how politicians in Sweden were more and more offering anti-immigration soundbites as a way to build support and votes, and another story that commented on the fact that James Hirvisaari’s extremism appeared to be completely a non-issue in Finnish politics, even though he was an open supporter of the Finnish Defence League, an extreme Far Right fascist and neo-Nazi organisation modelled on the UK’s English Defence League.
And these important issues you dismissed as ‘meaningless whinings’. !!!!
Sorry, but you came across as a total wanker who was just far too full of himself to stop and consider how to really build bridges with us.
You say you speak your mind honestly – well so did I, and you have done nothing to change that view since. You seem to constantly claim some kind of ‘get out of jail free’ card over the issue of persecution of minorities on the basis that you are gay, while obviously making prejudgements about the sexuality of the editorial staff at MT, one of whom is bisexual, the perspective of which you dismissed when you found out as ‘well, you can always choose a straight relationship’. Fucking idiot!
And YET, regardless of being gay, you still seek to perpetuate a very similar kind of persecution to that given to gays against another minority, religious people, specifically, Muslims.
For someone who claims to believe in dialogue, you are in fact a travesty of that noble idea!
As far as I know, Perussuomalaiset hasn’t had much chance to make any kind of modifications to the laws that were relevant in your case. I have some opinions about the relevant laws and the problems and tradeoffs about this issue, but on purpose, I have avoided argumenting with you about these. You are still griefing and I don’t think it would be good idea to disturb your griefing.
And although it is true that some of the Perussuomalaiset and their voters (me included) would like to tighten certain types of immigration, even among the immigration critics, some of them have supported granting asylum or letting immigrants to stay in Finland in some instances, even though it would be against the laws/official policy. So the picture is somewhat more complex than is usually acknowledged.
–As far as I know, Perussuomalaiset hasn’t had much chance to make any kind of modifications to the laws that were relevant in your case.
One of these is on family reunifications.
Here’s a link to a very good story about Halla-aho published on Migrant Tales by Reija Härkönen: http://www.migranttales.net/reija-harkonen-jussi-halla-ahos-actions-in-parliament/
And as far as I know, Halla-aho’s initiatives haven’t caused any change to that law or probably they haven’t caused much changes to other laws either. I haven’t checked, but that law was probably enacted long before Halla-aho had a seat in parliament by other parties.