Author: Migrant Tales

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.

 

Anonymous: Against all odds human spirt cannot be crushed

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Migrant Tales insight: Anonymous is one of the many readers that not only visit our blogs but contribute their stories and poems. I’m not at liberty to disclose her identity but can vouch for her story. We have been in touch countless of times on the phone and she has told me her six-year ordeal in Finland many, many times. 

Anonymous has been put in an institution since they claim she suffers from paranoia. She disagrees with this diagnosis. Talking with her one matter shines: Anonymous is disappointed with herself for failing to integrate into Finnish society. By integration we mean getting a profession, job and learning how to stand on your feet economically and socially. Even so, she claims that she lived without any money from the social welfare office for 15 months and without any aid from Kela for 20 months. 

Sometimes as a journalist and writer there are life stories that are painful to write possibly because the pain and suffering is still too restless and too obvious. That is the case of Anonymous. 

I’m honored that Migrant Tales is your anchor of hope in a world that appears hopeless. If writing can move mountains, I hope it can help heal your pain and frustration. 

IMG_8659

____________________

By Anonymous

The story that is so difficult to believe yet so disturbingly real. When a migrant woman’a pathway towards integration turns to one of disintegration, where she is caught in a twisted hair battle across the welfare spectrum after turning down two job proposals due to studies overwhelming workload, her four-and-half-year ordeal is still tragically going on today.  

Unfortunately it deliberately cultivated hate for a lengthy period. Given the fact that, in such an economic climate where the unemployment rate is high, acquiring any form of employment is usually a golden opportunity or a dream come true. On the other hand, I would have been willing to avail my services to these institutions were it not, for the nature of my studies being quite demanding, required at least 110 percent of my energy. Paradoxically, I was thinking in terms of education as an investment and having a stable future career that would offer job security. In my opinion, being a translator is usually a temporary job and is based on a need-by-need basis.

Eventually, this news wasn’t received well by the social workers. It created a stalemate and invited hostilities across the welfare peripherals. My housing assistance was subsequently cut a month after arrival in the city which I call home and reimbursement of all outstanding payments were delayed and put on hold for the sole purpose of causing hardship and a cycle of deprivation.

While my own social worker says “they can’t help you,” the utterance becomes a common rhetoric across welfare sectors from migrant office to labour office. With only unemployment benefit at that time of only 414 euros a month and having other huge expenses, I had to stretch my budget to the limits and make a lot of sacrifices. I ended up living under less than 3 euros per day for almost four months. Three years later, after being asked if I am still studying social work, of which they are aware, because they usually ask me to submit my performance certificate, I am taking a risk with the officials at the labour office when I fill out the form. I’m told that if I fill it, I will only get assistance for one month and then after that they’ll decide whether to extend it or not. The official adds: “We cannot help you” or “can Kela help you,” which is a familiar phrase across the welfare establishment.

Paradoxically, my attempt to seek further assistance for a period of 40 days failed and I had to live without any formal assistance. I couldn’t pay the rent, the electricity was cut off as well.

I then later received a negative response for unemployment benefits from the labour office and a negative response for labour market subsidy from Kela. These continuous discouraging decisions gave me the impetus not to enroll as a jobseeker anymore. So from November 2012 until now whilst from December 2012, due to misinformation from the welfare office to get me back again into the system which by then was the only remaining source of benefits at the time for me, I had to indicate that I’m a full time student entitled to study-assistance, state-guaranteed loan and should therefore seek assistance from Kela.

Having gotten used to the mind-cheese-games and the manipulative tactics of the social workers, I didn’t apply for the above, since they were well aware that I wasn’t again eligible for such benefits.  This strategic play continued for a period of consecutively three months hung a warning: If I didn’t apply for these subsidies  I may end-up with a rejected income-assistance decision. The bottom line was that if I didn’t have any income I wouldn’t be able to pursue my studies and get a career.

Institutional racism at fore

Survival a struggle at the core

career battle like a septic sore

considered an enemy-adore

assistance slash at the pore

every day life becomes a chore

aspirations will wore

pathological interest the roots of truth tore

and render her homeless furthermore

nothing left, asks what else in store?

Aware of these repercussions, I had to forgo living under uncertainties, being a welfare slave and thus, had to prepare myself for the inevitable with equanimity come what may!  Consequently I ended up being considered an adored enemy spreads through all welfare sectors and its arrays of influence to the extent that, even due to misinformation and disinformation being ignorant with good grades, I was asked to redo some courses and as a result ended up losing a precious year.

Then again, with excellent grades, I was once again denied a place at the same nearby higher institution of learning. Thus the race to accomplish it ran into serious speed bump. Have all gone well, it would have been an accomplishment. I would have earned a master’s degree in social work at the end of this year after only being in Finland for six years. However, I encountered considerable resistance (gone far …too fast… needed to be pushed back). Worst and above all, being ambitious yet still attracted hostility, my sheer hard work and dogged perseverance becomes my handicap creating atrocious situations for me. Due to the battle to preserve a career I am unable to accomplish an equivalent of a bachelor’s degree. Evidently, I am seen as a rival across the welfare peripherals and told, I’m taking a risk to pursue a career of my choice.

Her choice has no voice,

her choice is not like Sanna’s or Joice

for her aspirations she can’t rejoice

it extremely creates a loud noise.

 

Jussi Halla-aho: France the football giant

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 second one, France the football giant, was published in Scripta on July 2, 2006.

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.

Migrant Tales will publish Monday the last of the three blog entries, Do not tolerate the intolerant one (2007).

* 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. 

_____________________________

The headline includes an obvious allusion to my earlier article Bahrain the Sports Giant, and those who know me already sense what is eating me this time…

…and those who are ignorant of soccer, let me introduce the French team, victorious at least as yet, those dashing descendants of Asterix, Charlemagne, Louis the 14th, Montesquieu, de Gaulle, and Sartre:

Fabien Barthes

Jean-Alain Boumsong

Eric Abidal

 

Patrick Vieira

William Gallas

Claude Makelele

 

Florent Malouda

Vikash Dhorasoo

Sidney Govou

 

Zinedine Zidane

Sylvain Wiltord

Thierry Henry

 

Mikael Silvestre

Louis Saha

Lilian Thuram

 

Gael Givet

Alou Diarra

Willy Sagnol

 

David Trezeguet

Pascal Chimbonda

Frank Ribery

That’s fine, as far as it’s about sports, it’s probably all the same who is kicking the ball, as far as he is kicking it with skill and emotion. However, the fact that it’s the team representing France, of all countries, raises questions about comparability, representativity and role casting.

What does it mean for a team to be the national team? When the line-up listed above wins a tournament, does it mean that France is the winner? Does this team represent France in the way, say, the Spanish team represents Spain? In one word, are the Spanish and French national teams national in the same sense, and are their exploits comparable in the sense of national team sports? (I am thinking of the philosophical side, not of juridical technicalities.)

Somebody could say that this team obviously represents French and Frenchmen, because Frenchness isn’t what it was half a century ago. Still, there are problems here.

The first problem: The fact that there are black players in the United States national soccer team feels, still philosophically speaking, natural, as their presence in North America is as old as the United States as a country. Black people are thus an integral part of the American nation just like White people, whatever our idea of their contribution to the success of the nation. French, on the other side, has existed in a Celto-Romano-Germanic continuum as a state and a nation for more than one thousand years. Blacks and Arabs have abruptly entered the country after World War II. The players of the national team are either first-generation or second-generation immigrants, and in my opinion it is justified to ask whether they represent France at all, except in the sense of the above-mentioned juridical technicalities.

The second problem: Even if we forget about historical continuities, it is questionable, whether the above- mentioned line-up even represents today’s happily multicultural Frenchness. Even at the present stage about 80 per cent of the inhabitants of France are Frenchmen according to my own narrow definition. A little more than 10 per cent are Muslims, and less than 5 per cent are Blacks.

Of course it is impossible to introduce ethnical quotas for national teams, but in my opinion a team of 21 players, where 13 players are Black, two are Arabs, one is from the Indian subcontinent and one is some strange kind of Tahitian is essentially a different lot than the nation it is supposed to represent. I might have not remembered or noted to emphasize this in my article about Bahrain, but the point is that I am not disturbed by the presence of Blacks in the French team. Some French (in today’s sense of the word) are Blacks after all.

What does disturb me is that France, predominantly White, has a national team where 60 per cent of the players are Black. In my opinion it would be just fine if Finland was represented by a Romani or a Sami, because Romanis and Samis are historically part of Finnishness. On the other side I’d find it peculiar if the national team of Finland (in any sports event) would suddenly be manned exclusively by Nepalis living in Finland.

…as a matter of principle, this ethnical disproportion between representative and represented makes me think that the Western hidalgo, in all his multicultural tolerance, has outsourced physical stress and endurance to the Negro.  Why dontcha go runnin’ after that ball for massa, boooy…  [English in the original.] (Let me add here that the multiculturally tolerant lot is also enthusiastically outsourcing the wiping of their arses and the mopping of their floors to the Negro. “Who will work our menial jobs if we don’t increase immigration?”) Even in athletics, France has had a pitch-black national team for years. When white French and English spectators are sitting and watching TV, supporting their own Africans, I can’t help thinking of Roman gladiator school owners threatening each other that “my Nubian Negro is going to kick your Nubian Negro’s ass”.

[Followup discussion in Halla-aho’s blog]

Name: Kumma

What I am doing: Starting a discussion

Message: How come a Negro couldn’t be French? There have always been people coming to France from God knows where.  Now that better traffic connections and tolerance have brought Negros there, hey presto! – the new arrivals shouldn’t be French any more!

July 2, 2006

Answer: I understand that there are lots of people who don’t want to read my stuff, but I do find it difficult to grasp why anyone not reading it still should comment upon it. In my opinion the problem is one of representativity. Whether we accept the Negro as a Frenchman or not, the team does not represent France as she is today.

Moreover, I find it justified to ask whether the Negro is French in the sense Jean-Pierre is, if the Negro has entered the country just thirty years ago, and if his only real role in society (in addition to ghetto rioting) is doing sports for France.

 

 

How long will the Finnish police resist ethnic and cultural diversity?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Much of Finland is still living in a world where nothing is supposed to change as our society becomes ever-culturally and ethnically diverse. We read about the Sikh busman Gill Sukhdarshan Singh, who had to wait for a year to get the right to wear a turban at work, a Muslim woman who was fired the first day at work for wearing a headscarf, and yet another case of a Muslim woman who was not admitted to the police training school because she wouldn’t take off her headscarf during working hours. 

While some companies are allowing their workers to use headscarves, institutions like the police service appear to be resisting tooth and nail our cultural and ethnic diversity.

Näyttökuva 2014-6-8 kello 15.37.13

Migrant Tales wrote in April about a Muslim woman who could not enter the police training school because she wore a headscarf. Read full story here.

Peter Holley, a PhD candidate, highlighted on his Facebook page the official reasons why the National Police Board of Finland prohibits religious headwear:

  • Scarves and turbans could cause health and safety risk to the wearer or his colleague (strangulation or other injury);
  • Headgear could cause aggression or a negative attitude in people the police come in contact with;
  • Allowing headgear could lead to other requests for religion-related rights, for example the right to break for prayer;
  • Use of headgear could risk the police reputation for impartiality and trustworthiness.

Holley responds to each of the arguments put by the National Police Board of Finland:

  •  If other countries (such as the UK and Sweden) have managed to include religious headwear in their uniforms without endangering officers’ safety, why is the Finnish Police Force unable to do so?
  • This justification could be used for prohibiting women and ethnic minorities from serving in the police force. Is this perhaps why we see so few women and ethnic minorities in Poliisi uniforms?
  •  Does allowing such headwear really open the floodgates for such claims? This seems highly suspect to me. 
  • Is the Poliisi uniform responsible for the its reputation as impartial and trustworthy? Or to put this question another way, is the reputation the police as an institution dependent to a large extent upon the uniform its officers wear? I’m of the opinion that the reputation of the police as impartial and trustworthy would be strengthened by the accommodation of religious headwear and the inclusion of ethnic minorities. Can one remain impartial and trustworthy if others remain unrepresented?

Migrant Tales got in touch with Dr. Jonathan Hadley, a consultant and senior fellow at UNICRI – United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice research Institute.

His approach to the decision by the National Police Board of Finland not to allow headscarves is highlighted in a long paper, Policing and Integration in Britain: A Question of Social Change,* which we’ll publish a part of the introduction below. In a nuthsel, the matter hinges a lot on inclusion of multicultural individuals and acknowledging that that shouldn’t be a disadvantage.

One of the questions I asked Dr. Hadley is what we observe too many time in Finland: integration is the rule in theory but what happens too often is assimilation.

He writes in an email:

…Based on work by David Theo Goldberg in the 1990s that seems even more relevant today than then, it basically rejects models of ‘assimilation’ and ‘integration’ as flawed by the same premise of the host’s power relationship over the ‘immigrant’. Instead, it advocates an ‘incorporative’ model as a more ‘authentic multiculturalism’ premised on the equalization of power relations through the transformational impact of cultural hybridity.   

Below are a quote and two paragraphs of Policing and Integration in Britain; A Question of Social Change that synthesize the issue in Finland.

A truly multicultural society is one which is composed of multicultural individuals; people who are able to synthesize different worlds in one body and live comfortably with these different worlds. In order for a society to tolerate such individuals the society must by definition be open, fluid and confident. In other words, the society must be everything that Britain was not when the first Caribbean migrants stepped off the ships in the 1940s and 1950s.”[1]

(Caryl Phillips 2002. The Pioneers)

Introduction

Born in postcolonial St Kitts, Caryl Phillips reflects deeply upon what it means to be both of and not of Britain as the country of his parent’s migration in the late fifties. His argument, in a collection of essays that acknowledge the continued legacy of racism in Britain, is that there is ‘a new world order’ of cultural plurality emerging – one that is being promoted by the increasingly central role of the migrant and the refugee in the modern world[2]. This may be a challenge for policing: for where the police role is to maintain the status quo, at a societal and symbolic level that can also include conservative ideas of national identity and related values. Thus policing may find itself in conflict with a culturally diverse society and contemporary ideas of multiculturalism.

In an anthology of positive police roles for immigrant integration in Finland, the contribution of this chapter is to reflect upon the long and deeply troubled experience of policing and immigrant integration in modern Britain. It is told primarily, but not exclusively, through the post-war experience of West Indian/African-Caribbean migration to Britain. The central argument, however, is that contemporary policing – in Britain, Finland or elsewhere – needs to see itself as presiding over a period of significant social change characterized by the cultural plurality brought on by today’s global migration flows. This is not confined to countries with colonial histories. Countries with strong national histories may also feel their sense of identity challenged by European integration on the one hand and immigration from around the world on the other. To be sure, eastern European immigration is fast becoming a populist scapegoat for the present array of perennial social ills.

[1](Phillips 2002) page 279

[2](Phillips 2002)

* Policing and Integration in Britain’. This was translated into Finnish and published as a chapter entitled ‘Poliisitoiminta ja kotouttaminen Britanniassa: sosiaalisen muutoksen merkitys.’ in a 2008 Police College of Finland Publication: Poliisi ja Maahanmuuttajat (Edited by Arno Tanner), Polamk Report 67/2008.

 

Remiel: Is Finland suffering from an identity crisis?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Remiel* 

Since social media is out there today and everybody is connecting with everybody all over the world, is Finland afraid of losing its identity to other cultures? Is this why there is so much hatred and prejudice towards immigrants in this country?

IMG_0091

Remiel asks if Finland is suffering from an identity crisis. Is this the reason why there is so much racism in Finland?

 

I remember when I lived in a neighborhood of Helsinki. My immigrant friends’ apartment kept getting harassed by thugs, who sprayed on the door swastikas and the n-word. They even yelled at him when he was going back home from school.

I have to say there’s no future in a welfare country where the government is giving its inhabitants cash that people don’t appreciate. The whole situation feeds low self-esteem. If you have a child you’re not going to give him or her candy everyday, right?

Finland is suffering from a new economic crisis in 2014 and we’re going to be 90 billion euros in debt. This is easy money, it’s lent money. When I was younger, I was taught that I had to earn money if I wanted to have it. In my opinion this is still true. Finland needs change but who’s going to save you from yourself?

Nokia went down and Finland needs urgently an atmosphere and culture that supports entrepreneurs. The “candy” money and good education we get for free, and which pampered my generation, isn’t going to do it.

Back in the days when I grew up in the 1990s, people in Finland had principles back then. Our youth doesn’t have any or the courage. This country needs actions not words if it wants save itself  from its economic crisis and ever-growing debt. People need to start to change.

We Finnish citizens need to change as well. As citizens we need to be united and we can start from our apartment building where we live. In Finland, there is a culture of code of silence and too much reminiscing of the past. We don’t talk openly many times about the underlying issues.

Finland as a beautiful nation, which rose up from practically nothing after World War 2 and still managed to pay their debt to the United States before that, didn’t lose back then its independence even if we lent money from abroad.

We shouldn’t forget this important lesson and where you came from. You people begin to appreciate your past and your marvelous unique history for what is and what made you who you are today.

As a nation, we need to stop dwelling on those past scars and show the world what we’re made of. Rising from the poorest countries in Europe to  one of the best in Europe with the best educational system is quite a feat.

I personally don’t know of any country that can beat that.

* Remiel is a Finnish citizen with an immigrant background. He needs to write anonymously because, according to him, there is discrimination in Finland.  

Jussi Halla-aho: Of human value

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 first one, Of human value, was published in Scripta on April 13, 2005.

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 a politician Halla-aho is. 

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

Migrant Tales will publish Sunday France the football giant (2006) and on Monday, Do not tolerate the intolerant one (2007).

* 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. 

__________________

An axiom is a claim that is so obviously true that it doesn’t need to be backed up. It’s probably axiomatical (pun intended), that when granting a claim the status of an axiom, we should be especially careful. The claim should preferably be such, that it can be proven to be and have been true everywhere and always.

One of our modern axioms is that all people share a human value, and said human value is of equal size for every person. Even the worst racists and anti-egalitarians try to fit the human value axiom into their own theoretical formulas. Denial of the axiom is altogether politically incorrect.

If we claim that everyone is of equal worth, we also claim that we know the value of a human being and that it can be measured. If it cannot be measured, we cannot prove how much each individual has it. Human value can’t be anything that comes from outside us (from Heaven), or at least it can’t be proven as such, because it’s not written in the stars, waters or rocks. Actually, nothing points to equal human value (or human value in general) being anything else but a convention and a statement typical for our age, like past axioms: ”The Sun revolves around the Earth” ”The Pope is infallible”, ”A woman has no soul”, or ”Masturbation leads to near-sightedness”. They used to be believed in as blindly as human equality is believed in now. There’s been as much measurable evidence to support them as there is for human equality. Because they couldn’t be proven, they were declared axioms that didn’t have to be proven.

The only human value that can be measured and therefore exists beyond all doubt is the instrumental value of an individual. Individuals can be set to a hierarchy based how much the community would weaken were their abilities and functions removed. A farmer, a breeder of edible animals and a construction engineer are more valuable than others, because without them the community would die of starvation and cold. On the other hand, they would survive even if everyone else were removed. An individual using a weapon is the next most valuable member of society, because he protects the food supply and houses from beasts and enemies and keeps community members from responding to their primitive urges and annihilating each other.

An artesan (and his modern variations) is valuable in the sense that his products and inventions make life easier for everyone hierarchically above and below him. Natural scientists (especially physicists and chemists) are valuable, because they produce knowledge, which both the artesan, soldier, construction engineer and food producer put into practice. It’s possible to survive without basic research, but it’s uncomfortable. A doctor is valuable, because he makes our lives last longer and increases our quality of life. Necessary he of course isn’t, because the large majority of people would survive to breeding age without him. Breeding is the primary function of all species that everything else leads to.

The people listed above pretty much materially produce the society in which we live. These professions make free time and the existential thoughts that follow it possible, which includes most of astronomical and even more so all humanistic sciences. They separate us from monkeys, but are in no way necessary. Although it has to be said, that behavioral sciences have perhaps made us less likely to kill each other. Then again, wartime increases cohesion within groups and almost always leads to technological breakthroughs.

Artists, priests and politicians are basically worthless. Any community would perform its functions well enough without them, and everything that they do is possible only because of the actions of others. Artists especially are plagued by bitterness towards science, but no painting would be painted without the chemical industry, which is natural science in effect. The meaninglessness of these professions to the rest of the community is manifested by them surviving on alms and handouts alone (which are called state grants).

Intelligence, when it is not used for something necessary, is of subjective value, but a few will deny that reading a good book or listening to someone talking sense stimulates the intellect and puts you in a good mood. I consider it absolutely bizarre and insulting to think that Esko Valtaoja wouldn’t be more valuable than Juha Valjakkala, Helena Lindgren or an immigrant leaning on a wall at the Helsinki railway station.

Based on what I’ve said above and until someone explains me proper how come everyone is of equal worth, I am of the opinion that difference means difference of worth and everyone is of unequal value. However, unlike egalitarians imagine, unequal value doesn’t lead to gassing of those of lesser worth, unless there is no other valid reason for said gassing. I consider myself more valuable than a mouse carcass lying on a forest path, but I won’t tear the carcass to pieces because of that. I enjoy the world more with art and linguistic studies in it (I’m not all that certain about religions and the Parliament). But if the boat starts leaking, I consider it clear that the less valuable cargo goes overboard first, in this case artists and linguists.

Egalitarian nonsense is brought about by having too many people with enormous energy but nothing sensible to do. Karmela Liebkind, Rosa Meriläinen and Mikko Puumalainen as Finnish examples. Like people from any era, we are also blind to ourselves and our thoughts being just a momentary flash, soon to disappear in the endless tide of time. Upcoming generations will spit on our graves and guffaw and fart at what we consider meaningful. There is no reason to believe that ”equality”, ”tolerance”, and other things important to us will end up in the long list of nonsense from a bygone world. Alongside the Sun revolving around the Earth, infallibility of the Pope, the soullessness of a woman and near-sightedness as a result of masturbation.