We wrote Wednesday that the Finnish Air Force quietly dropped the swastika as the symbol of the Finnish Air Force Command. But not so fast. The swastika continues to adorn the Air Force Academy.
An article in DW of Germany asks how an anti-Semitism symbol like the swastika made its way to Finland.
Writes the BBC: “The symbol will always be intrinsically linked with Nazi Germany and its crimes, even though its roots go back many thousands of years.”
“The swastika entered Finland’s air force through a Swedish nobleman, Count Eric von Rosen,” the article reports. “He had gifted a plane to the air force of Finland in 1918, with a blue swastika painted on it. Rosen used to consider the swastika a good luck charm.”
Even if the use of the swastika is different than in Germany, one wonders why Finland persisted in its use way after World War 2?
History is one answer and how we played down our role and alliance with Nazi Germany. If some historians are to be believed, Finland fought a separate war against the former Soviet Union.
Would the removal of the swastika from the Finnish air force after the country signed an armistice with the USSR in September 1944 have incriminated Finland and put it in the same league as minor Nazi allies Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Romania?
There are much more facts that that are still hibernating. One day they’ll come out.
I remember right after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, I spoke with a commander of the Finnish air force and asked him if there were plans to replace the white-blue-white roundel again with the swastika.
Taken slightly aback by my question, he answered that there were no such plans.
Even if swastikas were not placed as markings on airplanes, it was still the symbol of the Finnish Air Force Command.
All of this, however, changed very quietly. Helsingin Sanomat reported on the change thanks to a tweet by Teivo Teivainen, a professor at the University of Helsinki.
It is highly likely that since the swastika always raised eyebrows especially abroad, the era of removing statues thanks to the #BlackLivesMovement which made it easier to remove the old Finnish air force symbol.
Air Force Chief of Staff Jari Mikkonen admitted in an interview with Helsingin Sanomat that the symbol often attracted negative and even “angry” attention abroad.
“We are not ashamed of the swastika we use, it is not related to Nazi Germany,” said Mikkonen.
In the new era of bringing down old statues and raising new ones, one of these that should go up is of Rosa Emilia Clay, a teacher and Finland’s first African who got citizenship.
As the gap between Joe Biden and US President Donald Trump widens in the opinion polls, populist-far right parties like the Perussuomalaiset (PS)* are feeling the pressure.
Much of the hate fuel that PS and other like-minded politicians feed on from Trump is starting to run out if the US president loses on November 3.
The 1 + 1 = 2 campaign strategy is to speak in code, attack vulnerable groups like asylum seekers, and spread white Finnish supremacist mumbo-jumbo that is hostile against migrants and minorities.
All of the 39 (now 39) PS MPs got elected to parliament with one message: We hate Islam.
The PS’ waning popularity is not only based on their anti-Muslim rhetoric but on the support they draw from Trump, Vladimir Putin, Victor Orbán, Xi Jinping, Kim Jung-un, and others.
All of the politicians mentioned above base their rule on human rights violations, disrespect for diversity, and their autocratic instincts.
Trump’s biggest fans in Finland are Jussi Halla-aho and the PS. In the tweet above, he states that he digs Trump and believes that the US president is the best thing that happened to the United States and the Western World. Source: Twitter.To put the racist icing on the Halla-aho cake, he tweets that no PS wants to see Finland turn into a multiethnic or multicultural society, which is present in our program and in everything we do.
I predict that after Trump is ejected from the White House, populist and racist parties may have their hate fuel reduced significantly.
The US is going through a revolution that is shaking its racist foundations. There is no return to the past when whites ruled.
The same is happening in Europe as well. We, too, will have to confront our colonial and racist past in a way we never expected.
As the troubled dust settles over Friday’s vote in parliament that kept Perussuomalaiset (PS)* Juha Mäenpää’s immunity from persecution, the arguments for or against have little or nothing to do with freedom of speech but expose white supremacist privilege.
Even if the Finnish constitution and integration program speak of a two-way process, in practice, it is only a one-way street.
Bengt Holmström, a Finnish economist who received the Nobel Prize in economics in 2016, said it all two years ago in an interview in YLE.
James Baldwin (1924-87) gives us a glimpse of what it means to be black in the United States. I am confident that people of color and other minorities feel the same way in Finland. We speak about social equality for all (Section 6 of the Constitution), but who are entitled to it?
“It’s good for them [migrants],” he said. “By the same token, it would let them move up the [social] ladder, and it would not irritate Finns so much [because foreigners have done little to nothing to build the country’s social welfare system that has taken white Finns decades].”
While Holmström says that the best way of integrating newcomers and their children in Finland is social inequality, others say it less directly but mean the same thing.
Turku University assistant professor Markku Jokisipilä is another “learned” Finn who defends white Finnish privilege to the core. It became evident after Friday’s vote in parliament, concerning Mäenpää’s parliamentary immunity.
A year ago, Mäenpää labeled asylum seekers, which is code for Muslim in the PS vocabulary, “an invasive species.”
Without even weighing how offensive the PS MP’s words are to migrants and minorities in Finland, Jokisipilä believes that the incident could encourage greater self-censorship among MPs.
“It remains to be seen whether there will be a list of topics that cannot be talked about with the same openness and critical thinking of other topics,” he said in Turun Sanomat.
He also suggested in the interview that there were different types of cultures. Since this was the case, politicians and people, in general, should be able to criticize different cultures or ethnic groups.
One matter that I have never understood, when reading the mindset of people like Holmström and Jokisipilä, is why is it ok to speak in a demeaning manner of migrants and minorities, who don’t have the same privileges and power they enjoy?
Why wouldn’t anyone try the same crude and offensive expressions with women?
Indeed, such women are white, and all hell would break loose as we saw with the Jukka Hankamäki misogynist publication fiasco of “Truth inciters.”
The reaction to Hankamäki’s publication, which was taken down from the Internet two days after its publication, does not imply that there is full gender equality in Finland.
FINNISH WHITE PRIVILEGE #71
Hate speech, as the Mäenpää case shows, is not only an example of white Finnish privilege but its supremacy over non-white people. White Finnish privilege has such deep roots in our society that we have people like Holmström, Jokisipilä, even political parties like the PS, openly endorsing status-quo social inequality.
Disagree? Listen to the excuses for Mäenpää’s racist invasive species outburst by MPs of the PS, National Coalition Party, and Christian Democrat parties. Some of these included: “[Mäenpää] chose his words incorrectly, it was a gag, a joke, a slip [of the tongue], a bad joke, those who don’t understand [what he said] have no sense of humor.”
Yes, true. It may be “a joke” to some in parliament, but I doubt that it is for those people whom Mäenpää labeled in the most hostile and demeaning manner.
There have been a number of social media posts about how health-care workers assume what is your cultural and linguistic background.Not only do they make the assumption, but label you in such a way.
While some of you may say that I am being hypersensative, what would a black USAmerican think if I asked him if he spoke English and where he was from?
I have lived most of my adult life in Finland and I still get asked by some health officials if I speak Finnish and where I’m from.
Here is a short dialogue of what happened this week at the dentist’s.
The dentist asks in English if I speak Finnish.
Me: “Yes I do” (responding in Finnish).
Dentist: “Oh, ok, but where are you from? You have a foreign name.”
At this moment I felt a bit uncomfortable. Why should I explain my background to the dentist? It’s my teeth that she should worry about.
Me: “I was born in Argentina, grew up in the States and my mother is Finnish.”
Even if I told her that “I grew up in the United States,” she determined that I was only from South American.
Dentist: “My husband is a foreigner and we have travelled in South American countries like Peru, Chile and Bolivia.”
Me: “Is your husband from South America?”
Dentist taken slighly aback: “No, he’s German.”
I told the dentist that in this day and age, there are a lot of Finns that don’t have Finnish-sounding names.
FINNISH WHITE PRIVILEGE #70
I hope that Finnish children are giving a different education about Finnish identity and Finns than what the middle-aged dentist received.
The dentist’s questions about my background felt like a rude example of white Finnish privilege.
Social media reaction to Friday’s vote in parliament that saved Perussuomalaiset (PS)* MP Juha Mäenpääfrom facing ethnic agitation charges has been lively.
Parliament (Eduskunta) voted on Friday not to lift Perussuomalaiset (PS)* MP Juha Mäenpää’s parliamentary immunity, which needed a five-sixths majority to pass. The final vote tally was 121 in favor of lifting parliamentary immunity, and 54 against; 24 MPs were absent from the voting.
Mäenpää equates his victory to President Juho Paasikivi (1946-56). He considers his “invasive species” comment to “sturdily pursing Finnish interests.”
Below are some reactions on social media to the vote.
“A gloomy and shameful day in the history of Finland. Parliament did not obtain the majority required to remove parliamentary immunity from Juha Mäenpää (Perussuomalaiset, or Basic Finns party) to be prosecuted for the crime of hate speech. Mäenpää compared last year at a session of parliament that people seeking refuge are invasive species. His speech fuelled debate on the limits of free speech and whether incitement of hatred, violence, and racism fell under that category. For the Basic Finns spokeswoman Riikka Purra, lifting parliamentary immunity from prosecution would have undermined freedom of expression in parliament. For the leader of the party, Jussi Halla-aho, the comparison between unwanted immigration and invasive species was a “humorous comment” to attract the attention of the government that should focus more on these points. This is very serious, such an argument can justify any outrageous outburst that is said in parliament under the protection of freedom of expression. Let’s be attentive.”
The racist in a culture with racism is therefore normal.
Frantz Fanon (1925-61)
Parliament (Eduskunta) voted on Friday not to lift Perussuomalaiset (PS)* MP Juha Mäenpää’s parliamentary immunity, which needed a five-sixths majority to pass. The final vote tally was 121 in favor of lifting parliamentary immunity, and 54 against; 24 MPs were absent from the voting.
Prosecutor General Raija Toiviainen was disappoined by the vote.
“Following the public debate [on Mäenpää’s immunity], I could guess that this would be the outcome,” she was quoted as saying in Yle. “But yes, I am disappointed with the outcome. It gives the impression that a minority that voted [in parliament] signals a more acceptable attitude towards racist hate speech.”
One of the most significant aspects of today’s vote was the high number of national Coalition Party MPs who were absent. One third or a total of 13 MPs out of 30 MPs were absent from the voting.
In June last year, Mäenpää had labeled asylum seekers “an invasive species.” In his defense, he said that “invasive species” is not an ethnic group even though the vast majority of refugees to Finland are Muslims.
Mäenpää equates his victory to President Juho Paasikivi (1946-56). He considers his “invasive species” comment to “sturdily pursing Finnish interests.” Read the full story here.
While Mäenpää said that he’d choose his words more carefully in the future, others fear that the vote sets a worrisome precedent. Like Social Democrat MP Hussein Al-Taee said on Wednesday, hate speech pundits and racist bullies are always testing how far they can draw the line.
The use of demeaning labels was used two days ago in parliament by PS MPs like Mauri Peltokangas, who referred to refugees as “welfare shoppers.”
If Al-Taee is correct, not only is parliament on a slippery slope but I believe the whole of Finland. The rise of an Islamophobic party like the PS in 2011 is the clearest example that we have been on that slope for many years.
Below are the names and party of the MPs who voted against lifting Mäenpää’s parliamentary immunity from prosecution:
37 PS MPs (Juha Mäenpää absent)
Sanna Antikainen
Juho Erola
Ritva Elomaa
Jussi Halla-aho
Petri Huru
Olli Immonen
Vilhelm Junnila
Kaisa Juuso
Arja Juvonen
Toimi Kankaanniemi
Ari Koponen
Jari Koskela
Jouni Kotiaho
Sheikki Laakso
Rami Lehto
Mikko Lundén
Leena Meri
Jani Mäkelä
Jukka Mäkynen
Veijo Niemi
Mika Niikko
Tom Packalén
Mauri Peltokangas
Sakari Puisto
Riikka Purra
Lulu Ranne
Mari Rantanen
Minna Reijonen
Jari Ronkainen
Sami Savio
Jenna Simula
Riikka Slunga-Poutsalo
Ville Tavio
Sebastian Tynkkynen
Veikko Vallin
Ville Vähämäki
Jussi Wihonen
6 Center Party MPs
Hannu Hoskonen
Tuomas Kettunen
Pasi Kivisaari
Mikko Käärnä
Juha Pylväs
Mikko Savola
5 Christian Democrat MPs (all of the 5 MPs voted against)
Sari Essayah
Antero Laukkanen
Päivi Räsänen
Sari Tanus
Peter Östman
4 National Coalition Party MPs (one third or 13 MPs of the 38 MPs were absent)
Expelled from the Perussuomalaiset (PS)* parliamentary group for mocking George Floyd’s death in a tweet, he now said that he would want to return to his former parliamentary group.
A day after he was expelled from the parliamentary group earlier this month, Turtiainen was adamant: “I am not going to request joining [the parliamentary group] again, but they can come to ask me with cap in hand,” he said according to Yle.
But things are now different since Turtiainen has had a change of heart. He wants to join again the parliamentary group that ejected him.
Eating his words, Turtiainen appears like a mouse pulling petals and singing a familiar tune: The PS loves me, I don’t love the PS, the PS loves me…
Suomessa keskustellaan, onko kansanedustajalla eduskunnassa oikeus ilman laissa säädettyä rangaistusta halujensa ja kykyjensä mukaan solvata maahanmuuttajia ja kiihottaa kannattajiaan kansanryhmää vastaan. Yllätys tällainen keskustelu ei ole, onhan rasismille näkyvästi tasoiteltu tietä Suomen eduskuntaan jo yli kymmenen vuoden ajan. Ei yllätys, mutta suuri kauhistus. Ei tämä ole Suomi, pohjoismainen, sivistynyt oikeusvaltio.
Enää ei voi ajatella, että laki kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan olisi tarkoitettu vain vähän suitsimaan sivistymättömimpien törkimyksien kielenkäyttöä. Tällä lailla on tarkoitus estää yhteiskunnan luisuminen rasismiin ja rasististen, fasististen joukkojen terrorisoimaksi. Ei ole enää mitenkää selvää, että ihmiset olisivat oppineet toisen maailmansodan kauheuksista ja hyvät voimat pysyvät automaattisesti vallassa. Eivät ne pysy.
Vihapuhe ja rasismi on pidettävä kurissa demokraattisen valtion suomin keinoin. Lainsäädäntö ja lakien oikeudenmukaisuus ja niiden soveltamisen järjellisyys ja kohtuus ovat tärkeä osa tätä työtä. Jos rasistisesta vihapuheesta ja kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan ei saa sen kummempaa rangaistusta, kuin vaikkapa ylinopeudesta, ne eivät kansalaisten mielestä ole kuin pikkurikkeitä. Ja kuitenkin on kysymys raskaista ihmisoikeusrikoksista.
Tällä hetkellä tilanne on se, että kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan saatu rangaistus on äärioikeistolaisille poliitikoille vain hyödyksi. Nimi pysyy kansan mielessä, maine nousee ja sakkorahoja vääryyttä kärsineelle kerätään porukalla.
Kun Jussi Halla-aho vuonna 2011 sai tuomion kiihottamisesta kansanryhmää vastaan, hänet määrättiin poistamaan rasistisesta kirjoituksestaan osia. Kansallissankari ”poisti” kohdat korostamalla ne punaisella ja toistamalla, millaisen tekstin oikeus on määrännyt poistamaan. Kirjoitus liputtaa Halla-ahon blogissa yhä rasistijoukkioiden riemuvoittoa. Oikeuslaitos oli mukamas voimaton ja sankarin sädekehä kasvoi. Media oli onnessaan tilaisuudesta klikkiotsikointiin. Helsingin Sanomat kirjoitti, että maallikon on vaikea ymmärtää Halla-ahon saamaa rangaistusta. Näin sekä oikeuslaitos että arvostettu valtamedia edistivät rasistipuolueen etenemistä. Maallikon oli ja on vaikea ymmärtää kansanedustuslaitoksen harjoittamaa oikeuslaitoksen halventamista.
Rasismi ja fasismi etenevät maassamme myös siksi, että on niin helppoa olla rasisti ja nousta jopa kansanedustajaksi, ministeriksi ja eduskunnan puhemieheksi. Mitään muuta ei tarvitse osata, kuin puhua sopivasti rumia maahanmuuttajista. On olemassa kansanosa, joita tällaiset puheet mukavasti kutkuttelevat ja jotka ovat aina valmiita äänestämään öykkäriä. Myös kokoomuslaista tai kristillisdemokraattista öykkäriä. Ahneus valtaa mielet ja puolueiden ehdokkaiksi hyväksytään jokainen, joka osaa hankkia äänestäjiä, keinoista viis. Pikkuisen kun osaa rääväsuisuuttaan moderoida median mukaan, on jo puoluejohdon suosikki.
Pitäisikö siis rangaistusten olla kovempia? Olisiko vankeusrangaistus aina paikallaan henkilölle, joka kiistää toisen ihmisen yhtäläisen arvon tai juonittelee kannattajansa vihaan ja vimmaan, jos jollain sattuu olemaan vähän tummempi hipiä?
Sellaisten ihmisten, jotka ymmärtävät, millaisia kauheuksia on maassamme meneillään, pitäisi ainakin olla tiukempia ja tarttua rasismiin aina kun sitä huomaavat. Myös eduskunnassa. Kaikilla yhteiskunnan tasoilla olisi selvästi osoitettava, että rasismia ei hyväksytä. Tunnustuksellinen rasisti, rasistisen puolueen jäsen ja äänestäjä joutaa menettämään kunniansa, työpaikkansa ja ystävänsä.
Kukaan kunniallinen ihminen ei lähde marssille fasistin kanssa.
The Finnish parliament voted Friday not to lift Juha Mäenpää’s parliamentary immunity, which needed a five-sixths majority; 121 voted in favor and 54 against. A total of 24 MPs were absent.
Those who voted against were 37 Perussuomalaiset Party MPs, 6 Center Party MPs, 5 Christian Democrat MPs, 4 National Coalition Party MPs, 1 Movement Now MP, 1 MP Ano Turtiainen.
The Finnish parliament (Eduskunta) showed once again its racism, bigotry, and fascism in an over four-hour debate on lifting Perussuomalaiset (PS)* MP Juha Mäenpää’s parliamentary immunity from prosecution.
Lst week, the constitutional law committee voted 12-5 to lift MP Mäenpää’s immunity after he compared asylum seekers last year with “an invasive species.”
Another worrisome matter that the debate about Mäenpää’s parliamentary immunity showed is the snail pace of justice. Prosecutor General Raija Toivianen’s decision to charge Mäenpää for ethnic agitation happened in January, about six months after Mäenpää’s infamous outburst.
One typical complaint by victims of racism, hate speech, and hate crime is that due justice takes too long in Finland.
While it appears that Mäenpää’s immunity will not be lifted on Friday, the likely vote will be another blow to the parliament’s credibility by Finland’s anti-racism, migrant and minority communities.
Mäenpää can lose his parliamentary immunity if five-sixths of parliament or 167 out of 200 MPs vote in favor. The PS can block the proposal with its 38 MPs.
Wednesday’s debate in parliament revealed as well how racism, especially Islamophobia, has deep roots in Finland. Left Alliance MP Paavo Arhimäki highlighted some of the excuses given by MPs for Mäenpää’s racist behavior.
According to Arhimäki, some of the excuses used by PS, National Coalition Party, and Christian Democrat MPs were, “choosing his words incorrectly, it was a gag, a joke, a slip [of the tongue], a bad joke, those who don’t understand [what he said] have no sense of humor.”
Social Democratic MP Hussein Al-Tee said that he hoped that members of parliament would stop using labels that Other people like himself.
“I don’t deserve it, nobody else deserves it, and this hall should be a place that unites Finns,” he said and continues later on. “I hope that this hall will not be used to Other people like myself and people belonging to my [ethnic] group.”
MP Hussein Al-Tee speaking bfore parliament on Wednesday. Source: Yle.
Al-Taee pointed the finger at PS Chairperson Jussi Halla-aho, who labeled him last week a fake refugee (partalapsi).
“He [Halla-aho] gave incorrect information about my [refugee] background and It felt really bad [what he said],” he added. “Finns are those people who are ready to commit to our laws, regulations, work and pay taxes. If they are unable to do so, society will help them get on the right road.”
Even if Mäenpää and the PS continue to deny that they didn’t mean to label any group with “invasive species,” few will disagree that he meant asylum seekers and Muslims.
In Finland, asylum seeker is code for Muslim.
According to the National Geographic, “An invasive species is an organism that is not indigenous, or native, to a particular area. Invasive species can cause great economic and environmental harm to the new area.”
PS MPs played down what Mäenpää said as did others of the Christian Democratic Party, National Coalition Party, and Center Party.
PS MPs like Kristian Laakso considered the whole parliamentary debate “nonsense” and a waste of time. “Is this debate worth it ?” he asked.
Another PS MP, Mauri Peltokangas, who is a member of Suomen Sisu, slammed the debate an “inquisition.” PS parliamentary group leader Ville Tavio went as far as to say that if we take steps to limit criticism of Islam, it is a step from being a civilized country to one that is “a stone-age Islamic state.”
Opposition Christian Democrat MP Päivi Räsänen said that lifting Mäenpää’s immunity is questionable since hate speech isn’t clearly outlined in the law (sic).
As mentioned, a number of PS MPs are members of the far-right Suomen Sisu association, which recommends white Finns not to marry outside their group.
Some PS MPs who are Suomen Sisu members include Olli Immonen, Jenna Simula, Mäenpää and Peltokangas, among others who were former members like Halla-aho and Juho Eerola.
Suomen Sisu chairperson Henri Hautamäki published on the same day as the debate in parliament a provocative blog entry titled “Total cultural war.”
While most of the text is a rant for Finnish white supremacist consumption, Hautamäki claims that the #BlackLivesMatter movement is a Marxist conspiracy by minorities to destroy Western culture and institutions.
Encouraging people to take action against such a conspiracy, the Suomen Sisu chairperson said that universities and the education system should be “cleaned” of non-nationalistic influences. Other institutions that should come under the control of the people is the media, the role of the state must be changed, according to him.
The only Finnish media to comment about Hautamäki’s column was Kansan Uutiset.
