Finnish bigotry has deep roots in ignorance

Posted on by Migrant Tales

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.

Social Democratic interim report on immigration policy strengthens old fears of the outside world

Posted on by Migrant Tales

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.

Raseborg: To headscarf or not?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

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.

The origins of modern Finnish xenophobia and racism

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

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.

SDP MP Eero Heinäluoma’s fearmongering now and then

Posted on by Migrant Tales

When it comes to injecting fear in Finnish blue-collar workers, SDP MP Eero Heinäluoma is no beginner. Apart from his incredulous claim in Swedish daily HBL that new immigrants will cause racism because they will take jobs from Finns, he has been a skillful fearmonger for quite some time.

One of the most suspect of these unfounded scare tactics was made by him and trade union SAK before Estonia’s EU membership in 2006. According to him, some 500,000 Estonian workers, the entire workforce of that country, would invade Finland when Estonia would become an EU member!

If I were a populist or a politician that wants to instill fear among some Finns for short-term political profit, I would use the foreigner-invasion card. Finnish politicians, populists and others have used it in the past very successfully. It is a bit like scaring children by telling them that the “big bad wolf” will come to eat them if they misbehave.

The only problem with this tactic, however, is that it has never happened.

What lies behind SDP MP Eero Heinaluoma's innocent smile for immigrants in Finland? Another injection of suspicion? Source: YLE

All quiet on the Finnish anti-immigration front?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

There are some encouraging signs in the Finnish immigration debate recently. So-called immigration “critics” such as Jussi Halla-aho, Eero Heinäluoma and others have been strangely quiet on this front. Even ultra-critical immigration bloggers such as Tiwaz have vanished from our blog. One of the best pieces of news yet was that hate website, patriootti.com, ceased to exist from Monday.

There are still spooky hate websites like www.palautus.org, where the person instructs people on how to kick out immigrants from Finland by force. The person states after spewing all this hatred, however, that he/she has nothing against foreigners.

Why haven’t we heard anything as of late on SDP’s immigration policy, maassa maan tavalla? Is there a serious policy rethink taking place on immigration in the party?

(There has been a debate in Migrant Tales over the definition of maassa maan tavalla. I define it as “Finland, love it,” based on the old pro-Vietnam War slogan “America, Love it or Leave it,” while others, who want to give the SDP the benefit of the doubt, define it as “In Rome do as the Romans do.”)

Even though it is too early to see where the debate will head next, one matter is for certain: When speaking publicly about racism the state and government must take a firm leadership role. If one leaves discussion to people that still live in the 1930s when it comes to ethnicity (in the same spirit as Alfred Rosenberg and others), and to opposition politicians, the debate can turn ugly.

Who was Alfred Rosenberg? He was one of the chief ideologues behind Hitler’s racial policy that gave the smoking gun by publishing, The Myth of the Twentieth Century, to exterminate millions of people through outlandish “demographic engineering schemes.” Believe it or not, Rosenberg was an architect.

One of the biggest mistakes that hate groups make is that their views of other cultures are based on a lot of boloney. Even though they would be the last ones to admit that they are racists, their strategy is seriously flawed. Why? Because it hinges on inciting nationalistic sentiment and rhetoric at the cost of excluding others from society. It is not based on fact but on ethnic fairy tales and over-exaggeration.

Like alcoholics, however, people with such social ills can change.

This is a good moment in the ongoing debate.

On The Road To Success blog: Finland has not ratified the UN Convention of Migrant Workers Rights

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Our friend Zuzeeko of On The Road To Success blog has published an interesting rticle on the impact of Finland not ratifying the UN Convention on Migrant Workers Rights and how this may affect immigrant workers in the country.

Writes Zuzeeko: Ratification would mean that Finland has willingly assumed the obligations laid down in the Convention and can be held liable under international law for failure to fulfill its obligations. Besides the obligation to respect the rights of migrant workers enshrined in the Convention, Finland would be obligated to submit reports to the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CMW), as stipulated in Article 73 of the Convention. Finland would be expected to report on legislative, judicial, administrative and “other measures” taken to guarantee the rights of migrant workers and members of their families. The Committee would examine the reports and make recommendations to Finland – on what should be done to adequately protect migrant workers within its borders.

In other words, and as Zuzeeko states that signing such an agreement by Finland will have a positive impact, could explain the reason by some of the problems that immigrants face in the Finnish labor market.

Thank you Zuzeeko for another eye-opening article!

Thank you Social Democrat MP Eero Heinäluoma

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Thank you Social Democrat MP Eero Heinäluoma for improving immigrants’ lives in Finland. Some students told me that people stopped them on the street and asked them that they should leave Finland because there is no work for them.

I wonder how many immigrants have been harassed as a result of Heinäluoma’s statement?

UPDATE (May 8):  An interesting development in the immigration debate in Finland is that more people like Akava union chairman Matti Viljanen have spoken against Heinäluoma’s comment on immigrants. He said that Akava supports the government’s initiative to make it easier for labor immigrants to move to Finland. Viljanen expressed concern over how racism is overtaken the ongoing immigration debate.

In an interview in the Swedish daily HBL, the SDP MP said that labor immigrants that come to Finland will fuel racism because they will take jobs away from Finns. In the statement, Heinäluoma indirectly condoned racism since it stopped immigrants from taking jobs from Finns.

The MP conveniently forgot that 2.7% of Finland’s population are foreigners and that unemployment among the immigrant community stood at a lofty 26% at the end of 2009.

Does anyone need any further explanation why racism continues to be an issue in Finland?

The multicultural society of the future

Posted on by Migrant Tales

It seems odd that in today’s technologically advanced societies in Europe and elsewhere our views of other groups continue to pose major challenges. If I had to picture the situation in a cartoon, I would draw a picture of one of our first primates, Australopithecus africanus, which existed 2-3 million years before present sitting in front of a computer and speaking to the future with a Skype time machine.

Even though an image of an Australopithecus africanus may shock some of us, we could, if we learned how to communicate with this ancestor, find common opinions on how diversity can jeopardize the social integrity of the group.

Even though the picture suggests that Australopithecus africanus was monogamous, what values would we share in common with this primate ancestor? Source: Mendelianblogs.files.wordpress.com

If there is a new watershed that the Internet and globalization has brought it could be the chance to be more independent from some of the more adverse values (like those that fuel racism and discrimination) of society. Thus we could, so to speak, eat our cultural cake and have it at the same time.

The problem, I believe, is that traditional modern societies and some of its different members, especially the seats of power, are reticent to such change because it would undermine their economic, political and social power.  Race or ethnicity is only a pretext to identify and exclude others from society’s pot of gold.

The modern society of the future (unless we end up destroying ourselves) will be built on diversity inside a hybrid cultural existence. We accept this form of society because we profit from it economically, environmentally and socially. If, however, we resist this change in a bellicose fashion, we will continue to be regulated by wars and petty and not-so-petty conflicts.

The new society that sees diversity as normal will be a huge step from classifying our world from the suspicious and hostile “us” and “them.”

MTV3 poll shows Social Democrats most satisfied with immigration policy

Posted on by Migrant Tales

A poll published by MTV3 on Sunday shows that the Social Democrats are the most satisfied with Finland’s immigration policy, with Kokoomus and the Center Party wanting stricter controls.

The results of the poll are the opposite of what SDP chairperson Jutta Urpilainen and MP Eero Heinäluoma have been signalling about tighter controls on labor immigration and that foreigners should respect Finnish values (maassa maan tavalla).

According to the poll, 36% of Social Democrats believe that Finland’s present immigration policy was not strict enough compared with 66% and 60% of Kokoomus and Center Party respondents, respectively. What is surprising is that 47% of the Social Democrats responded that the present immigration policy was adequate compared with Kokoomus (26%)  and the Center Party (36%).

As one Social Democrat told Migrant Tales, the results of the MTV3 poll are the opposite of what the party leadership has been signalling about tighter controls on immigration. “It is a short-sighted policy because the economic situation can turn for the better and then what are you going to say?” the source said.