A recent poll commissioned by YLE shows that the anti-immigration True Finns Party would gain 10.1% of the votes if an election were held today. It is the first time that 10% of respondents have given their voting preference to the True Finns.
The poll showed that the conservative National Coalition Party (Kokoomus) topped all other parties at 23%, followed by the Social Democrats (20.5%) and the Center Party (19.7%).
Should we be worried about the poll results? Not at all.
If the True Finns get a landslide victory in the April 2011 parliamentary elections, it would give Finns the opportunity to see once and for all how irrational and reckless their political platform is.
A victory by the True Finns would also do wonders to our foreign policy and be a real lure for labor immigrants since it would be based on xenophobia. Such a narrow-minded view of the world would, however, embolden immigrants in this country to take ever-stronger stands against the populist rhetoric and usual political baloney put out by the True Finns and other political parties.
The one-sided debate and insults hurled against immigrants by some representatives of Finnish political parties explains why immigrants are planning to establish their parliament in the fall.
One of the problems in Finland is that some lack the ability to call a spade a spade. For example, Juho Rahkonen of Taloustutkimus interpreted the better showing of the True Finns in the YLE poll on “stronger conservative principles.”
I would interpret it as a more xenophopbic-populist reaction to the outside world. Since we are in a recession, it is easy to blame Greece and/or immigrants for our problems.
Finland’s conservative Kokoomus youth leader, Wille Rydman, makes an incredible statement in a letter to the editor to Helsingin Sanomat: The state should not support nor fund multiculturalism because it would hinder the adaption of immigrants into our society.
So, what he is suggesting is that funds from Finland’s well-intentioned but semi-wayward integration program have been earmarked for enhancing multiculturalism in Finland. If Rydman wants to look at Finland’s integration program seriously, he will note that it fails on many fronts, like instilling a sense of dignity in immigrants.
The issue is much simpler: work and acceptance. If you want newcomers to embrace and grow in their new home they will have to be inspired by it. Our society must offer them opportunities and, most importantly, acceptance.
Some Finns like Rydman have a simplistic view of how immigrants should conform and adapt to our society.This is understandable because they have never lived in societies, and if they have have never fully grasped, where immigration is normal and where synergies occur.
One of the most flawed components or Finland’s integration program is that adaption of immigrants is one-way: that is, we will tell you how to adapt to our society and what is important to us. This is Rydman’s simplistic recipe: throw away your culture and learn Finnish as a Finn or Swedish as a Swede and, presto, full integration.
This type of recipe for immigrants is not only a disaster but leads to exclusion. Could he please tell us where this type of integration has occurred successfully?
Another saddening aspect of Rydman’s discourse, who is a member of Finland’s largest political party, is that he thinks that all these civil rights goodies in our constitution and laws, like equality and the right to diversity, do not apply to immigrants.
These types of simplistic solutions to the dynamics of immigration is not only irresponsible but shows how little some politicians understand the issue. Certainly with elections in April 2011 around the corner, politicians such as Rydman are eyeing the elections with opportunistic gleam.
Rydman looks at two extreme examples of immigration policy: France and Sweden. Why didn’t he look at how the “major leagues,” countries like the United States, Canada, Australia or England in the European Union, handle large immigrant populations?
Europe is a sad case lined with too many politicians such as Rydman and an unfortunate list of others who forget our dark and xenophobic past.What happened in the 1930s in Nazi Germany and most recently in the former Yugoslavia should serve as extreme rude wake up calls.
One of the most startling finds of ultra-nationalistic, anti-immigration groups is how they cover up their discourse of outright contempt for other cultures. Here are some of my favorites:
1) Immigrants are social welfare bums or come to Finland to use our generous social welfare system. Isn’t it incredible that in this debate on social welfare abuse and fraud, it is always immigrants or a certain group of immigrants/refugees that are abusing the system.
Are there any studies or specific cases of wide-spread social-welfare fraud among immigrants, or of Finns for a matter of fact? The reason why this hot issue has not been debated openly in the media of Finns who abuse the social welfare system is because it is a hot political issue. Politicians don’t want to do this because it would seem like a witch hunt and would make them extremely unpopular among voters. It is easier to blame everything bad and evil on immigrants because they are a disenfranchised group.
2) We are “critical of immigration” as opposed to saying, “I am proud of being a racist. Keep Finland white.” One matter that some Finnish journalists have not learned is to call a spade a spade when it comes to racism. This is nothing strange considering that some of them never raised any objections never mind criticism of our special relationship with the former Soviet Union.
Since racism awakens a lot of passions, this causes a lot of confusion as to how we should react to this social ill in our society. The Muutos 2011 party is a good example. They want to keep Finland white by claiming, ludicrously, that they want direct democracy. Their lopsided argument is that since “the people,” whom they claim to be speaking for, cannot practice direct democracy Finland is being overrun by social-bum immigrants and by a lost immigration policy. Who are these “critical-of-immigration” groups? They are ultra nationalists that despise cultural diversity and enjoy living in cultural myths that give birth to stereotypic and simplistic views of other cultures.
Handing over immigration and integration policy to these types of groups would be like allowing a child to build a nuclear reactor.
3) A scratched record: We don’t want blahblahblah because they are incompatible blahblahblah. If you look at the argument by some ultra-nationalist groups, they are always griping about how certain immigrants are blahblahblah and therefore incompatible blahblahblah. What is their solution? Kick them out of Finland! Fostering good ethnic relations and attaining a society that treats all of its inhabitants equally is something these groups don’t want. If they were in power, it would be like awakening a social Frankenstein with nostalgia for the Germany of the 1930s.
4) There are many more absurd arguments I could point out by opportunistic mainstream politicians, who forget that the second-biggest ethnic minority group living in Finland are immigrants or naturalized Finns. Take all of their arguments with a large pinch of salt. If you feel confused or do not understand their logic, the fact is that they were conveyed to confuse and be hollow.
Here are some passages that may interest you. Remember that the book was published 26 years ago.
How many time I have listened as my dark-skinned friend tell of the Finns’ awkward, insulting and violent behavior towards them. Almost every time I walk through the streets with one of my more “foreign” looking companions, some Finns figures out a way, more or less grossly, to emphasize our otherness, our foreignness. Therefore, the fact that I have white skin has definitely helped me survive here; however, my disillusion has definitely grown since I became aware of this. Steve Huxley, p. 9
Many Finns hold some of the same stereotypes that were prevalent in urban United States in the 20’s and 30s concerning different races. It is not surprising that Finland is a closed society for foreigners, a “dead-end society” if you will, where there is dear little chance of competing equally for choice jobs with Finns after having taken a degree in this country. Enrique Tessieri, p. 14
You are given a partial or non-admission before arriving here, the next thing to do is to get yourself i any Finnish language courses and prepare yourself for the police harassment via telephone calls or letters. Obi Marizu, p. 18
Its position today as a small neutral sate between two competing superpowers should also make Finland very sensitive to issues involving minority rights. In discussing injustices in Finland, Finnish history also provides foreigners with an understanding of why the country’s laws frequently deal with them rather brusquely. Ahti Tolvanen, p 35
The usual kind of ad for a subtenant room you will find in the newspaper is something like, “Gentle old lady rents room to sober non-smoking female student of religious background.” Now you have been brought up in a convent in Tanzania and came here to study theology – so you go there with great expectations. The first thing you find out is that the old lady is not that gentle at all, the next thing that there are a few additional conditions: absolutely white skin of the same shade as hers, accent-free Finnish and a blue (Finnish) passport. Alexander Sannemann, p. 41
I have been thinking about these things (Finnish consensus, cold war foreign policy) long before writing them down, just not to fall into the vicious circle of self-censorship. Adrián Soto, p. 44
There are two kinds of girls who look for contacts with foreign men. First, there are the Hunters and Gatherers. For them the foreigners are above all foreigners: exotic, dark, reputedly good in bed, possess a high prestige value when shown in the street, and are useful for language practice. The girls are looking for a short adventure or a longer affair, but many think a Finn, in the end, is the only plausible mate. For them, and there are quite a lot of them, you will always be an object, a foreigner, not a human being. Maaria Seppänen, p. 49
Aliens' Office head Eilä Kännö (1970-84) inspecting a foreigner applying for a residence permit. Among foreigners, she was cursed by many for being an inflexible, cantankerous hardliner.By Rabah Boussuira, p. 23 Foreigners have no civil civil right nor chances of getting housing in Finland.By Rabah Boussuira, p. 39Foreigners are no longer a rare sight in Finland as in 1984. By Rabah Boussuira, p. 45
Twenty-six years agoin 1984 Strange days, the experience of foreign students in Finland, was published by Gaudeamus. The book was the second published by foreigners in Finland over the arbitrary treatment they received by the then Alien’s Office, the police and by the country in general. The first one was in the 1970s by a Nigerian called Katso, katso nekru. See part two as well.
Here are some timely excerpts from Strange Days that could still apply to immigrants in Finland:
If anything, the tales contained in this book could be described as those of a disappointed lover who still has some hope left. The editors (Gregory Moore and Adrián Soto, p. 7)
There are foreigners who have survived many years in Finland by maintaining ignorance, by remaining content with the “peace” which comes through not being able to participate in political life, the peace which comes when one has only a minimum of rights. I realized that I had, for a time, been one of these people. Steve Huxley, p. 9
Those of us who plan to make our homes in Finland after finishing our studies discover that there is no work for us in our chosen field. Many foreign students have given up their studies because they know that their university degree in Finland will only be a paper which they can hang on their wall. Because jobs are so scarce in Finland for degree holders, the standard hiring practice you’ll be faced with is first Finns and then, maybe, you. Enrique Tessieri, p. 15
I have used this philosophical statment of (Elizabeth) Browning (A great mind, A great courage, A great energy. And a great persistent patience) because this is what it entails to live and survive as a foreigner in Finland. Obi Marizu, p. 18
As a foreigner residing in Finland it is more than likely that you will have dealings with the police from time to time. That is because the official body for carrying out most government policies related to foreigners is the Aliens Affairs Office (today Finnish Immigration Service) in the Police Bureau of the Interior Ministry. The main function of the Aliens’ Office is surveillance. It was set up during the last war to keep track of all foreigners in the country and counteract possible espionage activity. Ahti Tolvanen, p. 25
I have a question mark concerning the following: Of course there are positive sides to sleeping under bridges. Judging from the amount of frozen drunkards collected by the police every winter, you won’t get lonely there. And as for staying with friendly people– you’ll usually have to pay your rent with sex, especially if you are a male foreign student. After she’s handed you on to her seventh girlfriend, you might start dreaming about getting your own place to stay. Alexander Sannemann, p. 37
This is, of course, a democratic society. But Finnish democracy is structured in such a way that all ideas and decisions come from above, very little is ever taken from the ground level. Adrián Soto, p. 44
…it is the attitude Finnish men have about foreigners. This will cause you many problems. You may be assaulted by a drunkard when walking with a Finnish girl, you may be told you have only come to steal our girls, or at least you and the girl will be objects of intense, hostile staring. This goes to the extent that foreigners married to Finnish girls tend to find the Finnish public more racist than do unmarried foreigners. Maaria Seppänen, p. 49
Even though Finland's immigrant population has grown by ten times since 1984, when Strange Days was published, the ongoing one-sided debate on immigrants and immigrantion to Finland makes this drawing by Rabbah Boussuira still valid.
When will these end and when will these what-Finns-think-of-immigrants polls stop? Name one country where a native believes there are too few immigrants and therefore more foreigners should move to their country? Why are these types of polls important and what do they reveal?
The YLE poll asks a similar question if it polled white members of a community in the United States and asked them if they want minorities to move to their neighborhood.
The recent poll commissioned by YLE and done by Taloustutkimus shows that the majority of Finns (surprise! surprise!) don’t want to encourage more immigrants to Finland.
Nearly two thirds of Finns say Finland should not encourage more foreigners to move here, according to a YLE survey. Supporters of the right-wing True Finns Party were the most opposed to more immigrants. However, Centre Party and Social Democratic supporters were not far behind.
According to the survey, 63 percent of respondents said Finland should not try to entice foreigners to live here. A whopping 82 percent of True Finns backers were of the same opinion. For Centre Party supporters the number was 70 percent, while 68 percent of Social Democratic backers felt the same way.
Supporters of the Green League were the most receptive to more immigrants. A total of 65 percent of Green respondents said that Finland should work to attract foreigners here.
Meanwhile, 45 percent of backers of the conservative National Coalition Party said they supported more immigration while 53 percent were opposed.
One third of respondents said that immigration would play a significant or very significant role in their voting decisions in the next elections.
A total of 2,399 people responded to the survey carried out by pollster Taloustutkimus.
The poll shows that the majority (63%) are against luring more immigrants to Finland. Source: YLE
The poll shows that the most critical party towards luring future immigrants to Finland was none other than the True Finns (PS), followed by the Center and Social Democratic Party. Source: YLE
The fate of two grandmothers, Eveline Fadaylin of Egypt and Russian Irina Antonovan, is a scandalous situation that shows how civil servants and politicians run away from responsiblity and hide behind shoddy laws.
I wish you the best of luck if you want to place your trust on some of these politicians that are handling the case of these two unfortunate grandmothers. Before you make such a decision, take a look at the Roma, who have lived in Finland for ages and are still treated like second- and third-class subcitizens.
Certainly the immigrants are to blame if we allow the authorities and politicians to use us as political fodder to strengthen their narrow-minded views and short-term opportunistic goals. Immigrants and Finns should, however, send a loud and clear message to such politicians that this type of behavior is unacceptable and shameful.
If, for example, the Social Democrats are to be believed, Finland has today a serious social problem on its hands. Apart from sky-high unemployment, immigrants are also being exploited by being underpaid and discriminated at workplaces. If the SDP are really interested in this alarming situation, why haven’t done something about it?
Is ignorance the only matter that is behind our difficult relationship with other cultures? Is it embedded in the 1930s and in racist eugenics’ theories that continue to strengthen our mistaken view of ourselves and outsiders? Does the ignorance have its roots in outright suspicion and hatred of other cultures, like with the Roma?
I believe that there are enough sensible Finns in this country that consider the behavior of some politicians and of Finns as shameful and unacceptable.
One of the first and foremost aims when building good ethnic relations is acceptance. If you add to that the element of equal opportunity you will solve many of the problems related to bigotry. In sum we will be building a country that will be successful in this century as well.
The title of an interim report on immigration policy published by the Social Democratic Party on Friday not only reveals the party’s greatest fears but strengthens age-old views of outsiders. Apart from the political malarkey that SDP sees immigration as an opportunity, it likes to use pet catchwords – like the populist anti-immigration True Finns – such as “managed immigration.”
How can a country aspire to have a successful immigration policy and speed the integration of these people into our society if its first and foremost aim is to be on the defensive? How can it show leadership and promote good ethnic relations if it labels future and present newcomers, as it does almost constantly, as second-class employees, tax-dodgers, guilty of fuelling racism and working illegally in a two-tier market?
Even though the report claims that one of SDP’s aims is to lower unemployment, what has the party done in the past 25 years to improve the labor situation of immigrants?
The sad fact is that political parties in Finland have done dear little for immigrants in the past. Unemployment figures speak for themselves: the jobless rate has gone down from about 54% in 1994 to an estimated 26% today.
One of the mentors and strongest allies of the SDP’s anti-immigration wing is MP Kari Rajamäki, who was interior minister in 2003-07. Just like Jarmo Rantanen, another hardline SDP interior minister in 1987-91, Rajamäki’s view on immigration is so far off the mark that under his leadership immigrants and refugees will always be a target of suspicion.
Social Democrat MP Kari Rajamäki. Source: Savon Sanomat
For a person who has lived many years and heard countless promises by politicians that immigrants’ rights in Finland will improve, I take with a large grain of salt SDP’s interim report, especially where it states that surveillance of the labor markets should be stepped up. Racial profiling is one cause for alarm if the SDP gets their way.
One could rightfully ask as well why do we need new rules to scrutinize labor markets because more immigrants are moving to the country? No trust? Are Finnish workers honest and immigrants dishonest?
Taking into account the small size of the immigrant community in Finland and the fact that little has been done to improve their rights, what assurances do we have that anything will change if the Social Democrats are members of the next government?
The problem with the SDP interim report is one that has inflicted Finland throughout its history: Immigration and outsiders are basically seen as a threat.
One reason why Finland has such a small immigrant population is because some sectors still suffer from a bad case of xenophobia. Why would anybody want to move to such a country where the laws and atmosphere are generally hostile?
Apart from the few political sound bites in favor of immigration, the SDP interim report should be seen as a disappointment and even a greater one in the context of a party that has shifted closer to the populist True Finns on immigration policy.
I was very surprised to read that the educational board of Raseborg, a town located in southwest Finland, had retracted apparently grudgingly from a decision to ban Muslims from wearing headscarves at school. The Raseborg school district is the only one in the country that had in force such restrictions.
Here is an update on the matter in Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish), which shows that the attitude in Finland towards wearing headscarves at educational institutions and at work is quite flexible. Raseborg’s decision to ban headscarves at schools has not been followed anywhere else in the country.
Even though such a ban was done in the name of furthering equality, did it or was it a bad case of ethnocentric policing? If you want to promote equality and our way of life, do you do it by prohibiting certain cultural practices of other groups? By banning headscarves, did Raseborg send a message to the children that they should be ashamed of their culture?
Headscarves, as well as all other religious symbols, were banned from French schools in 2004. Source: France 24
While I am all for equality and the social welfare-state model, there are certain limits to what the state can impose on us. One of the roles of society is to offer opportunities to all of its members, even in the area of cultural diversity. Therefore it is our right to decide which one of these is suitable as long as no laws are breached.
If the educational board of Raseborg is truly interested in advancing the noble cause of social equality as we define it in our culture, its energies would be better spent if it promoted and defended our inalienable right to cultural diversity and to free choice.
Living in a society that abides by the spirit of our constitution and laws means that we also share public spaces with other cultures.
Children who grow up in two cultures have enough adaption challenges they have to deal with. If we are as a society truly interested in their welfare and rights, one of the first matters that our educational system must teach them is that there are many lifestyles in our society.
Modern Finnish racism has two sources: nationalism imbedded deep in our history coupled with low self-esteem. Compared with the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s, matters have got better though there is still a lot of room for improvement.
One of the cornerstones of Finnish nationalism is the myth that we are alone and therefore we must be self-reliant to the extreme. The truth, however, is that we could not have become an independent nation nor have made it through two terrible wars with the former Soviet Union without outside help and support.
Thanks to our resolve in the Winter War (1939-40), the conflict took a critical turn in favor of Finland after England and France were threatening to send troops to fight against the Red Army. If this had happened, it would have changed the course of World War 2.
Despite the hatred that some Finns have of Russians, it was Czar Aleksander II that gave language rights to Finnish-langauge Finns. As a Grand Duchy of Russia, Finland also got its own currency. These rights, which were gained in a single decade, were more than what the Finnish-langauge Finns got when they were under Swedish rule during 1249-1809.
Despite ardent nationalism and diehard suspicion of the Russians, leaders of Finland’s independence intelligently understood that it would be a wise choice to maintain the country officially bilingual. The final adoption of the flag was done in the spirit of the Nordic region as well, even though Akseli Gallen-Kallela proposed one that had a red background and the Finnish lion.
This was the official flag that waved over Finland from January to May 1918. It was designed by Akseli Gallen-Kallela. Source: Wikipedia
While our independence and national unity were based on our hatred of the Russians and to a lesser degree of the Swedes, Finland’s fear of outsiders took a new turn in the 1930s. During the Great Depression, Finland enacted the Restricting Act of 1939 (law 219/1939) that kept foreigners and outside investment to a minimum. Moreover, responsiblity for immigrant affairs during that decade was handed to the secret police, which saw foreigners as a threat to national security.
The interesting question to ask is how come nationalism continues to shape the view that some Finns have of the outside world? Why do politicians still scare Finns and maintain the myth that we will be invaded?
The answer is simple: It is profitable.
It reaps rewards because it offers instant short-term benefits if you want to smother dissent rapidly, encourage self-censorship of the media and public, as well as support public enterprises and institutions at the cost of competition. Worst of all, it creates an antagonistic situation between immigrants and the rest of the population. How can one integrate smoothly in such a hostile atmosphere?
The Finland of the future, which we are building today, will have more freedom of thought, less self-censorship of the media and public, greater competition, acceptance that we are a culturally diverse and start to see the outside world (especially Russia) in a less defensive fashion.
Politicians, institutions like the Finnish Border Guard and other public leaders who continue to inject fear of the outside world, choose to live in the past because it is profitable.
It is high time they modernize their view of the world and embrace the challenges of the new century in a novel way. Why?
Because it is more profitable for Finland in the long-term.
