Suomenmaa: Lapsellista sensuurihenkeä

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Here is a bit more about how some Perussuomalaiset like none other than MP James Hirvisaari and his wife have filed a complaint to the Council for Mass Media (JSN), according to Suomenmaa, a Center Party daily.  The complaint stems from the usage of the term “persu” by the media, which Hirvisaari claims is being used in a derogatory fashion against the PS.

This complaint follows PS MP Jussi Halla-aho’s decision to boycott Aamulehti because he did not like the pictures that the Tampere-based daily publishes of him.

Halla-aho stated that “cooperation” with Aaamulehti would end as a result. Newsmagazine Suomen Kuvalehti wrote in a column that they did not know that a large daily like Aamulehti had a cooperation agreement with Halla-aho.

As we have mentioned earlier, it is surreal that of all people Hirvisaari is the one trying to tell the media its job. Moreover Hirvisaari and Halla-aho belong to Suomen Sisu, a Nazi-spirited association, according to the Finnish Criminal Police (KRP) and Supo.

Does a member of such a questionable organization can give advice to Finland’s media?

Suomenmaa doesn’t spare the Hirvisaari couple any mercy: “The MPs behavior (to complain to the JSN) is childish and the way censorship enforced in the worst dictatorships.”

___________

Kansanedustaja James Hirvisaaren (ps.) puoliso Merja Hirvisaari on kannellut Julkisen Sanan neuvostoon median suhtautumisesta perussuomalaisiin. Hirvisaaren mielestä tiedotusvälineet yrittivät vaalien alla muokata kansalaisten mielipiteitä perussuomalaisia vastaan. Erityisen törkeänä esimerkkinä hän pitää persu-sanaa, jota hänen mukaansa käytettiin ”halventavana, pilkkaavana ja valheellisena mitätöinnin työkaluna.”

Read whole story.

open Democracy: The undesirables of the world and how universality changed camp

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: According to Ash Amin, Europe has gone within a space of a few years from 85% acceptance rate for asylum seekers in the 1990s to 85% rejection by the end of the last decade. 

He continues: “The West, which had endorsed the posture of the free world, wanted to become a place of welcome for all the people sent packing from the Soviet Bloc or who had managed to escape. The occidental world, with the United States and Europe as its leaders, declared themselves the bearers of the notion of universality. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the need for a universality rhetoric has dissolved or changed camp, showing the subjective and relative nature of universality itself.”

After the fall of the Berlin Wall refugee and migrant status was no longer a universal right because it was a “matter for negotiation,” according to him. 

Probably this gray zone that Amin writes about could shed light on the moral state of Europe these days with respect to refugees and the rise of right-wing populist parties. There is no clear enemy like the Soviet Union as before so its ok to bend some of our civil right laws as we have seen happening in the United States.

If we speak of justice on the one hand but send refugees without thinking twice to be killed, persecuted or tortured in the countries they came from, are we not eroding those very values that hold us together as a society?

___________

Ash Amin

Within the space of a few years, Europe has gone from an 85% acceptance rate for asylum seekers in the 90’s to an 85% rejection rate by the end of the 2000’s.

Read whole story.

Thank to @refugeevoice for the heads up.

Helsingin Sanomat: Kaksi kertaa muita rikkaampi

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Coming from three cultural backgrounds, I personally feel comfortable with an identity like “multicultural Finn” in this country. This is ok as long as I am in Finland but things change if I go to the United States and Argentina, where there is no need to have multicultural before the name of the country. 

Melissa Heikkilä’s column sheds light on the ever-growing number of multicultural Finns that are coming out and who are proud of their background. Some of them grew up in Finland while other ones came here when they were adults. One matter unites all of them: at least one of their parents are immigrants.

If you want to castrate a person spiritually, one sure way of doing it is by forcing the person to deny a part of his or her identity. This is why assimilation cannot and should never be a part of our integration program in Finland.

The good news is that it’s never too late to bring out that other side. In my case it happened when I met a beautiful girl from Colombia at high school. She opened up a dormant world that took me back to one of the places I was once from.

If you accept who you are you will feel new power and strength. That is why those who are critical of multiculturalisn fear us so much.

___________

Melissa Heikkilä

Asun alueella, joka on tunnettu värikkäästä kansallisuuksien kirjosta. Yhdessä kerrostalorapussa voi asua koko maailma. Vieri vieressä ruskeiden ovien postiluukkujen takana elävät harmoniassa Virtaset, Smithit, Nguyenit, Hosseinit ja Rodriguezit.

Read whole story.

Xenophobia and racism are the poverty of Finland today

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

Some claim that ever-growing poverty and social inequality in Finland were the reasons why the Perussuomalaiset scored such a big election victory in April. We read in the media about ever-growing bread lines and how it has become more difficult for some people to make it through the month economically.  Even so, does this justify growing xenophobia and racism in our society?

Some cast their only vote in April in the belief that our most pressing problems would be solved by voting for an anti-immigration candidate of the PS.

Voting for such a candidate, however,  is like calling a pyromaniac to turn off a raging fire. You need qualified firemen to deal with that kind of threat in the same way that Finland needs today leaders and politicians who have political experience and a strong background in economics, globalization and sociology.

Poverty is unacceptable in any society. In some parts of the world it means living off $1 a day, or even less. It means making hard decisions: I will not eat today in order to feed my children.

I remember a documentary I saw in university a long time ago about a poor family in the US Appalachia Mountains. “IN the same way that some rich folks may be proud of being rich,” the young father said standing next to his wife, “I’m also proud of being poor.”

The couple didn’t apparently have enough money to buy milk so they fed their baby gravy from a bottle.

I am certain that when Finnish politicians and policy-makers speak of poverty they don’t mean living off $1 a day or having to feed your baby gravy (läskisoosi).

Poverty means different things in affluent countries like Finland and in the developing world. Poverty teaches some of us two important lessons:  our insignificance in society and that nothing is permanent. If there is some wisdom we can learn, probably it is treating people nicely even during bad times because we never know when we’ll need their help.

The rise of racism and right-wing populism in Finland and Europe are proof that these lessons are not even being acknowledged by some. Moreover, the arrogance of some politicians is like adding salt to the open wound of Finland’s polarized society.

The more we boast our racism and suspicion of minorities in public and in private, the more our society will continue to slip into a more devastating type of poverty. We will not throw extra weight overboard to slow our downward spiral but instead our most inalienable values like social equality for all.

Xenophobia and racism are the real poverty facing Finland today.

guardian.co.uk: While the European left dithers, the right marches menacingly on

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: There are many factors that are fueling the rise of nativist right-wing populist parties in Europe. One of these is the global economic recession after September 2008, which was triggered by the bankruptcy of US banking group Lehman Brothers. Another factor has been the lack of any effective opposition to a message that aims to polarize society further.

The rise of xenophobia in Finland, for example, has been fueled by the Perussuomalaiset and little to no opposition by the media to their xenophobic message, according to a doctoral dissertation by Camila Haavisto.

Wilt Hutton’s column below attempts to answer the main challenges facing Europe on the right-wing populist front. He writes: “The trouble is that the longer the left’s response is confused, the more the populist right has begun to make anti-immigrant attitudes culturally acceptable (in Europe).”

Probably the first question we should ask is why the message of right-wing populist parties, which the PS is a part of, are unacceptable in today’s Europe?

Like much of the ongoing debate, your view depends on where you stand: Are you a target or the one attacking immigrants? Are you white or black? Muslim or Christian?

How do you think Europeans should address the right-wing populist message and challenge?

_____________

Wilt Hutton

Immigration: The longer the left’s response is confused, the more the populist right begins to make xenophobia acceptable.  It is hard not to be very uneasy. Every month, there is another milestone passed in the ever onward march of Europe’s populist, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, nativist right.

Read whole story.

Here is a comprehensive story by HBL (in Swedish) on the rise of right-wing populism in Europe.

Suomen Kuvalehti: Professori Vesa Kanniainen: Jokainen on rasisti

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Here is another column that will add to Mark’s good contribution on what is racism. 

This column below is by Vesa Kanniainen, a professor of economics at Helsinki University. When reading opinion-pieces on immigration in Finland and elsewhere it is important to find out who the writer is and what may be his motives for writing on the topic.

We at Migrant Tales don’t hide the fact that we aim to be a blog that debates some of the salient issues facing the immigrant and minority community in Finland. It aims to be a voice for those whose views and situation are understood poorly and heard faintly by the media, politicians and public.

In my opinion, Kanniainen’s column is a borderline case justifying racism on the one hand and giving it the thumbs down on the other.  He attempts to defend how we are all racists deep inside and that this hinges on our genes. Why doesn’t he speak how nationalism, instead of genes, fuels racism?

Some believe that the flip side of nationalism is always racism. according to Chris Hedges.

A lot of people who play down racism in Finland do so because they are white and are not immigrants.  The issue affects them in another way as opposed to a person who may have a multicultural background.

If racism is learned it can be unlearned. How much we want to unlearn racism is, I believe, the big question that Kanniainen should address.

He concludes: “As an economist I know that Finland needs immigrants. Finns still have the right to not accept the values that many immigrants represent. This isn’t racism. ”

What does this statement tell us? What does it imply about immigrants? Is it for acceptance of minorities or under certain conditions?

True,  Finns (no pun intended) do not have to accept the values of some immigrant groups in the same way that immigrants are not obliged to accept the values that some Finns have. By values I do not mean being against the UN Declaration of Human Rights but permitting people in our society to make choices about their lifestyles. This is a human right.

Kanniainen’s column is a good example of the undercurrents found in today’s debate over Finland’s ever-growing cultural diversity. We state that we want to accept immigrants but the conditions are quite rigorous and narrow. These conditions are generally being made by white Finns.

What makes these conditions suspect, however, is that they’d never be suggested to members of our own group. 

__________

Vesa Kanniainen

YK:n yleissopimuksen mukaan rasismilla tarkoitetaan rotuun, ihonväriin, syntyperään tai kansalliseen tai etniseen alkuperään perustuvaa erottelua, poissulkemista. Koko elämän mysteeri on kuitenkin rasistinen.

Read whole story.

What is racism?

Posted on by Mark

What is racism?
Racism entails a combination of fundamental wrongs against a person on the basis that he or she belongs to a group defined by race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin. It can take the form of actions, a call to action, a behavior (individual or institutional), an attitude, or a belief. The hatred/anger/fear/mistrust that fuels racism often hides behind a belief or cognitive system of justification – the so-called ‘denial of racism’.

What follows is a simplification. But it serves to give an idea of how different attitudes or beliefs relate to racism and how denials are constructed. It might also serve as a stimulus for discussion.

Why is it wrong?
•    It is an abuse of power: a dominant group violates the human rights of a minority group.
•    It is the defamation of a people: our people are good/superior and your people are bad/inferior.
•    It is an injustice. It breaks the Constitutional laws of most societies (including Finland’s).
•    It is immoral. It is valueing people differently based on their ethnic grouping.

How is it justified?
•    It is an abuse of power: – but WE were here first, so WE can suppress THEIR culture.
•    It is the defamation of a people: – but THEY create more problems than THEY solve.
•    It is an injustice: – when THEY break the law THEY should be punished more severely (Finnish Constitution: Ch2 § 6 Everyone is equal before the law).
•    It is immoral: – but WE are more valuable to society than THEM.

Why does it persist?
•    It is an abuse of power: – getting people to admit or give up power is notoriously difficult.
•    It is the defamation of a people: – nationalism says our country is the best. Finns are the greatest.
•    It is an injustice: – we tell ourselves we are just looking after our own (Finnish Constitution: Ch2 § 6 No one shall… be treated differently from other persons on the grounds of…origin, language, [and] religion…)
•    It is immoral: – It is easy to abuse a person and then deny it if you can blame them for the abuse.

Why is it pointless?
•    It is an abuse of power: – it’s stupid. Abuse creates animosity, which creates more problems. These things always come back to bite you in the bum!
•    It is the defamation of a people: – it’s tribalism. You cannot put your foot on a man’s throat and then complain he doesn’t stand up.
•    It is an injustice: – it’s counterproductive. If you take the basic rights of one group away, then society becomes poorer in terms of overall justice.
•    It is immoral: – it’s plain wrong. It hurts people. There is only one species, and it’s human. And they are called HUMAN rights!

What is the appeal?
•    It distracts from the problems at home and shifts responsibility.
•    It generates a feeling of ‘belonging’ for the in-group.
•    It vents generalized anger about an ‘unfair’ society.
•    It’s easy to hide the hatred/fear behind a ‘good morality’.

What are the common denials of racism?

The economic denial: It’s not personal, it’s only business!

The social denial: We never had any problems until they came along!

The cultural denial: But their so different; how can they ever fit in!

The multicultural denial: We are all the same and they are all totally different

The social denial: We never had any problems until you came along!

The historical denial: Immigration never existed and we’ve never emigrated.

The anthropological denial: But of course they are just savages, aren’t they!

The philosophical denial: It’s not immoral to believe races are different.

The biological denial: Biological differences justify us treating them differently.

The anti-philosophical denial: Racial equality is just a philosopher’s pipe dream!

The moral denial: We are just taking care of our own!

The superior denial: We’re just better than them!

The scientific denial: But it’s been proven that we are better!

The sexual denial: I don’t like those foreigners, but I’d shag her (ethnic woman)!

The sophisticated denial: Competition between peoples is normal!

The strategic denial: Imagine if one day they were the majority!

The clichéd denial: Hey, I’ve got friends who are Arab, but…!

The honest denial: It’s them fucking niggers/pakis/arabs/islamists…!

The dishonest denial: It’s not about ethnicity; us Finns just want…!

The comedy denial: How do you make a black man cry? Kill his whole family!

The reverse denial: But why did you ever want to come here?!

The paranoid denial: Everyone knows they’re terrorists!

The simple denial: I’m not a racist, but…!


HS: Perussuomalaisten nousu muuttanut kirjoittelua

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: One wonders how racism has got an ever-growing foothold in Finnish society. Could it be ignorance about what it is and how it can impact society adversely? Or are the racists so dim that they believe that such a social ill is a normal condition?

Camila Haavisto’s PhD dissertation concludes something that sheds light on how racism has grown in Finland and, as a consequence, could shed light on why the Perussuomalaiset has become Finland’s third-largest party.

Haavisto states that the PS’ view of immigrants and refugees has been accepted by the media almost without any criticism.  In the last years, politically incorrect usage of words and expressions of immigrants have become more general.

If Finland betrays its values of social equality for xenophobia and racism, it will continue willingly or unwillingly to fuel populist political forces like the PS.

___________

STT

(Camila) Haaviston tutkimusaineiston aikana perussuomalaisten nousu ei ollut vielä ehtinyt vaikuttaa tiedotusvälineiden maahanmuuttokirjoitteluun. Haaviston mukaan sävy muuttui vuoden 2008 kunnallisvaalien jälkeen.

Read whole story.

Will the real Timo Soini and the PS please stand up?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

Perussuomalaiset chairperson Timo Soini’s decision to sit it out in the opposition should be seen as a hard blow and a failure of the party to cash in on its election gains in April.

How is it possible that a party like the PS, which rose from relative obscurity to become the third-largest party on its strong anti-EU stance has decided to sit it out in the opposition? The answer to that question is as inscrutable as Soini and the PS.

Never in the history of Finland has a party that won so many seats in an election ended up in the opposition.

Sensible Finns understand that our economic and social well-being hinges on the EU. If the EU and euro fail so does Finland. Europe’s problems are Finland’s.

Giving Finnish voters a picture that this country can survive on its own as an isolated island from the rest of the world and live off nationalist rhetoric is reckless. Some call it populism.

As we have mentioned on this blog on a number of occasions, there is nothing wrong speaking out for people who are socially excluded. But to add to that message xenophobia and suspicion of the outside world, immigrants and refugees destroys all credibility of such a noble message.

The Mr.-Hyde-and-Dr.-Jeckyll style of politicking by the PS shows that it isn’t a serious party. It turns into and acts like a Mr. Hyde with minorities and is a Dr. Jekyll with Finnish voters.

In the 1960s and 1970s there was a popular US TV show called “To tell the truth.” Three persons appeared on the show with the same name. A panel had to figure out who was the correct person.

Soini’s odd political bedfellows beg for the same answer as in the popular TV show: Will the real Timo Soini and PS please stand up?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSoxQNJjkFs]

The PS’ dangerous advice to the Finnish media

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

It was pretty surprising to read about Perussuomalaiset MPs like Jussi Halla-aho and James Hirvisaari offering the Finnish media lessons on how they should do their job. Whenever governments and politicians start to blame the media for their shortcomings we know there is something wrong. 

Just like the separation of the church and state, there must be a clear line between the media and politicians. Telling journalists how they should do their job or what the editorial policy of a newspaper should be is simply unacceptable in a Western democratic society.

Certainly we could take examples of countries like Myanmar, North Korea or Russia to see how governments and politicians manipulate the media for their own aims.

Apart from criticizing the media on numerous occasions and preferring not to answer tough questions by journalists, Halla-aho has now decided to boycott Tampere-based daily Aamulehti. The reason? He does not like the pictures that the newspaper prints of him.

Halla-aho did not like this picture published of him by Aamulehti. He said he would no longer give interviews to the newspaper. (Picture by Kimmo Brandt)

In another odd statement, Hirvisaari said that the media was treating the PS with disrespect.

Both Halla-aho and Hirvisaari reached public notoriety with the help of their xenophobic blogs. They are what some have called the “far-right extremists” of Timo Soini’s party.

Both are members of Suomen Sisu, a “Nazi-spirited” association, according to the Finnish Criminal Police (KRP) and Supo.

Can representatives of a “Nazi-spirited” association seriously offer advice to Finland’s media?

Can two people who base their writings on spreading stereotypes and hatred of immigrants and refugees in Finland tell the media what is ethical and correct? Seeking advice from Halla-aho and Hirvisaari would be like an ex-smoker with terminal lung cancer asking tobacco companies for advice.

Halla-aho was asked recently on a television program if he renounced the work of Alfred Rosenberg and David Duke, a former Klu Klux Klan head. It is understandable why associations like Suomen Sisu don’t have any issues with Rosenberg, who was tried in Nuremberg and sent to the gallows in 1946.

In Rosenberg’s The myth of the twentieth century, his argument is the antithesis of cultural diversity, or multiculturalism, which Suomen Sisu and Duke are vehemently opposed. Rosenberg believed that in order for the Germans to become the “master race” it needed to expel the Jews from the country. Only then would Germany reach greatness.

Tens of millions of people perished in World War 2 after Nazism and its representatives like Rosenberg were defeated and placed on trial to answer for their crimes.

It is ludicrous that people like Halla-aho and Hirvisaari want to teach our free media how to do its job. By keeping these two politicians, as well as others under scrutiny, we know that the media is doing its job.