MTV3 poll shows Finns do not want more refugees in their municipality

Posted on by Migrant Tales

A survey published by MTV3 (in Finnish) on December 12 showed that the majority of those polled do not want their municipality to accept refugees. Even though 34% had no opinion on the matter, 46% said they were either against or very much against their municipality accepting new refugees. Only 20% were either in favor or very much in favor of accepting refugees.

Another question asked was whether the state should force municipalities to accept refugees. The responses were pretty clear: 70% said no, 16% maybe. 8% yes and 6% had no opinion.

Even though the recession is a factor that has forced Finns to have a more negative attitude of refugees,  one cannot place the full blame on the economic situation. Contrary to the recession of the early 1990s, when unemployment soared close to 20%, the jobless rate in October stood at 8.2% versus 5.8% a year ago, according to Statistics Finland.

In my opinion, these types of polls only reinforce old stereotypes of foreigners in general and refugees in particular in Finland. There are very few polls that show what immigrants and refugees think about living  in Finland and the impact of high unemployment and exclusion.

Even though the economic situation has got worse, some Finns use this as a pretext to justify their prejudice against refugees and immigrants. Such attitudes are, in my opinion, a failure of the education system and the fact that there are still very few refugees and immigrants living in the country.

Finland’s New Identity in the New Century

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Here is the Finnish-language version of the article below that appeared in the 4/2009 isuue of Monitori-lehti.

What will our new identity be like in the present century as our society becomes more ethnically and culturally diverse? Will immigrants be clumped into one group and called New Finns, or will they prefer a hyphenated identity such as Iraqi-Finn?

A middle-school geography book published in 1941 claims that the Finns comprised of two main racial groups: Nordic and East Baltic. The characteristics of the former group was, ”tall, thin, blue-eyed, fair-haired and have red cheeks,” while the latter one was ”stockier, blonde-haired and have no redness on the cheeks.”

Even though there is no scientific basis for such classifications and they appear odd from our information-age perspective, some history books continued to classify Finns in such a manner up the 1970s. One of the matters that these type of racial classifications did was keep the definition of the Finn on very narrow terms.

In my opinion, our identity as Finns took a radical break from the past with the passage of the new Constitution (1999), Naturalisation (2003) and Non-Discrimination Act (2004). Even though there is no mention of the term multicultural society in these laws, they do show great sensibility to minorities and acceptance of cultural diversity.

Everyone knows that laws cannot change attitudes in an instant. They can, however, be important watersheds of our values and aspirations as a society.

Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen has called immigrants uusia suomalaisia, or New Finns. In principle there is nothing wrong with this classification since it implies permanency as well as a readiness by society to accept newcomers. Others such as maahanmuuttaja, immigrant, have been met with mixed feelings since it implies non-permanency.

Even though these identity labels are imposed by the outside, it is important to keep in mind that what different groups call themselves depends on them. For some minorities this may be more important than for others.

Whatever identity a group prefers to use – New Finn, Finn, hyphenated, hybrid or none – isn’t the underlying case. The key factor is that we are capable as a society of drawing strength from our diversity, and that Finland can become a new home for those who may choose to live with us.

How do some Finns discriminate?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

In countries such as the United States and Brazil the term “race” is used to find out the ethnic diversity of their societies. While it is unclear why Brazil classifies in its census people from different ethnicities, in the United States it is done when drawing up electoral districts.

In order to find out more information on the implementation of the Employment Equity Act, Statistics Canada places minorities into “visible” and “invisible” groups. A visible minority is a “person, other than Aboriginal persons, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in color.”

Finland does not use ethnicity nor race to classify different groups but mother tongue.  If we look at the history of this country from the nineteenth century, the role of language has played, and continues to play, in identifying Finns.

Since there were few “visible” immigrants in the nineteenth century in this country, language must have played an important role in helping to figure out from which group the person was.

This brings forth an interesting question: Do some Finns generally discriminate due to mother tongue or skin color – or is it a double whammy? When some employers claim that immigrants “cannot speak Finnish well enough,” are they using language  in the same was as color or ethnicity would be used in the United States to discriminate?

Or is language used to discriminate against “invisible”  and language+ethnicity for “visible” immigrants?

Mannerheim and Finnish provincialism

Posted on by Migrant Tales

I heard yesterday an interesting talk on Marshall Carl Mannerheim (1867-1951) just a few days before the outbreak of the Winter War exactly 70 years ago on November 30, 1939. The talk centered on different aspects of the Civil War of 1918 and how Mannerheim saw the world.

Those who have studied this man, know that he was not the easiest person to get along with and had a mean temper. If he would wake up today from his eternal sleep, one of the matters that would shock him is our liberal, democratic Nordic welfare society.

Without stealing any of his thunder from those difficult decades when he led Finland, Mannerheim’s thinking would have been totally out of touch with these times.

Despite his strong distaste for dissension and the ideology behind Bolshevism (he was trained as an officer of Czarist Russia and had a soft spot for the Menshevics), his view of the world was more open than many Finns when the country became a republic in 1917. How many Finns had back then a broad international view of the world and were not overtaken by the hysteria of nationalism and petty provincialism?

How did nationalism and that narrow view of the outside world impact Finland during those crucial decades that led to the Winter and Continuation Wars? If mistrust and hatred of Russians was the driving force that unified some Finns back in those difficult times, how did it affect its foreign policy? Can we still see this same suspicion and mistrust today sprinkled in our views of immigrants?

Even though it is questionable that Finland could have done something to prevent the Winter War, there are a lot of question marks concerning the Continuation War. Answering, or pondering these queries seriously, will bring to light many things about ourselves as a a people and hitherto-unknown or hidden aspects of our history.

One of these is the reticent attitudes of Finnish authorities towards foreign investment (Restricting Act of 1939) and draconian laws to discourage foreigners to move to the country.

One of the biggest culprits, I am certain, were a small country’s petty provincialism, fear, and suspicion of the outside world.

Whose fault is high immigrant unemployment in Finland?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

 

Even though Finland has been generous about investing on language- and culture-training course for immigrants, one should rightfully ask if the money is being spent effectively. Why is there still high unemployment among immigrants in Finland if we are spending hefty sums of tax-payers money on these types of courses?

While high unemployment (well over 20%) among the immigrant community in Finland is due on a myriad of factors, would the money be better spent if the government launched a campaign to lower those walls of suspicion that exist between the Finns and immigrants?

Shouldn’t the government be investing its precious time and money on how to make Finland a truly equal opportunity country that views immigrants and diversity as a positive matter?

In my opinion, the problem of high immigrant unemployment is attributable to the chicken-and-egg syndrome. On the one hand you are required to learn sufficient language and culture skills that will never be obtained in a classroom environment. The only way to learn such skills is through employment.

Even though Finnish legislation offers protection and encourages cultural diversity, we are in danger of falling into the trap of status-quo inactivity. The issue and the social problems that arise from high unemployment will not be solved by sweeping them under the rug with the help of  social welfare programs.

Moreover, too many in Finland, I fear, would not care less. They argue that since unemployment is about 7% nationally, immigrants should passively accept double-digit jobless rates.

High immigrant unemployment is not the failure of any particular group but falls on our society as a whole. We will continue to fail dismally in the task of integrating newcomers as long as we do not find ways to bring immigrant unemployment near national levels.

This, I believe, is where the government’s money and time should be invested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Immigration does and must work for Finland

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Some of the bloggers who visit this site believe that multiculturalism in a demographic sense is a failed project. Just because immigration has been a part of humanity since the dawn of time, some insist that a country with lots of immigrants become  failed states. As examples they use countries such as the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and others to drive home their argument.

It would be important to point out that while the former Yugoslavia ended up in ethnic civil war, the outlandish conflict was not brought on by immigrants that moved their. The civil war was created by the inhabitants of that country.

Moreover, if one wants to look at how people can be taught to function successfully  in a new society, one has only to look at North and South America, Even though everyone knows about countries such as Canada and the United States, we hear very little about nations such as Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

Even though Argentina has had a violent history, the immigrants that moved there in the early twentieth century comprised as much as 49.4% of the population of Buenos Aires. In Uruguay, there were also high number of immigrants in relation to the total population. Brazil also promoted European immigration to help “whiten” the population from the high amount of blacks.

Even though Uruguay had a high number of immigrants, which totalled about 30% of the population by 1900, the country became one of the first welfare states in the world in the 1910s. It even adopted a secular constitution in 1919.

How is it possible that a country like Uruguay with such a high amount of immigrants could have built one of the most successful societies in the world in the beginning of the last century?

Immigration was also a driving force in Argentina that transformed the country. However, the failure of the country to become a successful nation in the same league as Canada and Australia is not due to immigration but the political and economic system.

And then there is Brazil, the giant of Latin America. Brazil also attracted large flows of immigrants in the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. If one looks at the country, it is a mosaic of people from different ethnic and cultural background. Even so, Brazil never suffered civil wars nor ruinous political infighting that characterized many newly independent Spanish-American countries.

Yes, there are many examples of countries that have succeeded in turning immigration into a force of progress.

Those countries that do not understand the strengths and richness of diversity will be doomed to geriatric wards and economic hardships too painful to describe in words.

US Louisiana justice of the peace refuses to wed white woman with a black man

Posted on by Migrant Tales

The refusal of a Louisiana justice of the peace to marry a white woman and a black man has caused dismay and calls by government as well as civil rights groups for the removal from office of the public official, Keith Bardwell.

The United States overturned in 1967 a law which prohibited in a number of states such as California marriages between black and white people.

In an article in the Louisina-based Hammondstar.com, Bardwell defended his decision. “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” he said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

The odd reasoning by the Louisiana justice of the peace clearly shows that racism in the United States is alive and kicking. Even though there are no such laws in the European Union that forbid multicultural marriages, there are some stark reminders of it in our recent history in Europe.

Immigrants in Finland must have a voice

Posted on by Migrant Tales

One may ask why unemployment among foreigners was three-fold higher than the national average of 7.6% in the month of August. Certainly those that take a stricter view on the role of immigrants in Finland may claim that it is due to lack of language and job skills.

While this may be partially true,  it is only a partial answer to the serious problem.

In my opinion, the reason for the present situation is because immigrants do not have a representative voice in Finnish society. Why would politicians care less about representing this group if they account for a small percentage, or fraction of a percentage, of their votes?

Another factor why immigrants do not have a voice in Finland is because there are still too few qualified teachers, social workers, civil service employees, policy makers with immigrant backgrounds representing and looking out for their interests.

Even though the government and laws of Finland may have the best of intentions, they are only that: good intentions with a sour aftertaste of patronizing.

High unemployment is, in my opinion, a clear way to measure how well immigrants are doing in Finland. At present over 20% jobless rates, or even over 50% for some national groups, many immigrant groups are doing very poorly in this country.

If immigrants want to have a greater say in their new home, they must rise to the challenge.

The present path of accepting high unemployment as if it were normal because those with foreign backgrounds lack sufficient skills will no do as an excuse.

The only way when things will start to change for immigrants  in Finland is when they start to have a voice in this society.

Is multiculturalism good for Finland?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

One of the surprising matters about the debate on multiculturalism is how little we understand the basic terms. Take for instance the term multicultural. Does it only mean a society comprised physically of many (multi) cultures, or is it  a policy that facilitates the participation of immigrants and  ethnic minorities in a society?

Finland is not officially a multicultural society like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, but our laws shows multicultural sensibility (Constitution, Citizenship and Non-Discrimination Act) towards minorities.

What do people mean in Finland when we speak of “multicultural society?” Are we referring to a society comprised physically of many cultures and/or official policy through laws such as the Non-Discrimination Act?

I suspect that it is a bit of the both.

If  we are still pretty much in the dark about what multiculturalism is and implies for Finland, how can we debate the issue effectively?

One of the reasons why some believe that multiculturalism is good for Finland is because there are so few immigrants in this country. It is a bit like being in favor of peace. Everyone will agree that peace is important but when the chips are down and war breaks out, some of us turn into Rambos.

Since multiculturalism (as a policy) has become a hypersensitive political issue during these difficult economic times, I believe that this moment is a better time than ever to discuss inequalities in our society: discrimination, exclusion and unemployment.

The recession in Finland has most likely hardened attitudes against the small immigrant community.

Is multiculturalism as a policy good for Finland?

Answering the question requires us to understand four phases:  immigrants, recognition, acceptance and incorporation into society. We are probably entering the second phase (recognition) in Finland.

Even though integration in global markets is vital to Finland’s survival and success as a country, over 20% immigrant unemployment nationally reveals a lot about the role of these people in this country. How can society benefit from newcomers  if exceptionally high unemployment continues to be an issue?  How are our “multicultural sensible” policies promoting greater incorporation of some minorities in society?

Is multiculturalism good for Finland?

Probably the question should be turned around: Is Finland ready for multiculturalism?

Jimmy Carter said Republican congressman’s outburst was based “on racism”

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Here is an interesting case: The biggest military and economic power in the world, the United States, continues to be hounded by one of its dubious legacies – racism. On the other side of the Atlantic, we too have a long way to go before we wipe the scourge of racism from our continent.

It is a positive matter, however, that in Finland the debate on racism and equality for all of its inhabitants has been taken up by parties on the traditional left and right of the political spectrum. Racism has no place in our society since it undermines our Western democratic values.

Former President Jimmy Carter, a civil and human rights champion, said this week that US Representative Joe Wilson’s outburst to President Barack Obama’s speech to Congress was based on racism.

“I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said in a story by AP at a town hall meeting held at his presidential center in Atlanta. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

Wilson shouted from the aisles “you lie!” during Obama’s speech.  He later apologized for the outbreak.

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

Carter, who is also a member of the Democratic Party, added: “Those kinds of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care. It’s deeper than that.”