Tag: Multiculturalism

The big picture of Finnish society in the twenty-first century

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

One of the biggest unanswered questions when debating our ever-culturally diverse society in Finland during this century is trying to make out what the big picture is. Do we have to search faraway to forge that big picture or are the answers right under our noses?  

If you ask anti-immigration groups what that big picture is they will quickly cite one-way integration, or assimilation (check the Perussuomalaiset party’s Nuiva Manifesto). On the opposite side of the debate you will hear a completely different answer promoting “tolerance,” or suvaitsevaisuus.

One of the pitfalls of both positions is that they lack a comprehensive view of the big picture. Even if anti-immigration groups are fighting tooth and nail to keep Finnish society “white,” they don’t offer any solutions on how to include those that are visible immigrants and minorities. Tolerance is a very general term and could not stand alone as an effective integration model.

Another key stumbling block in the search for a model is that we haven’t asked the opinion of immigrants and Finns with international backgrounds how they envision our society in this century.

When looking at different integration models we should find one that works best for us.

It is a good matter that Finland looks at Canada as one successful integration model for immigrants. It should be noted, however, that the Canadian model of multiculturalism is totally different from what some anti-immigration groups define it to be.

In Canada it is a model that promotes inclusion of immigrants whereas for anti-immigration groups in Europe it is an immigration policy that permits Muslims and Africans from moving to the region.

If you ever get into a debate with a member of the PS who belongs to the Suomen Sisu association, you should ask that person to define multiculturalism. Is he or she talking about the Canadian social policy that came about in the 1970s or is it an immigration policy that allows Muslims and non-EU nationals from moving to our country?

The first big mistake that anti-immigration groups in Finland and elsewhere make is claiming that we are a multicultural nation. Nowhere in our most important laws like the Constitution is that adjective “multicultural” mentioned. It does not even appear in the Non-Discrimination Act (Yhteenvertaisuuslaki).

What kind of a society are we then? We use a lot the term “multiculturalism” but what does it actually mean? Does it mean cultural diverse society?

If a term like multiculturalism can mean so many things to different groups, this explains in part why we are still in the dark about that big picture of what kind of society we want to build in this century.

The formula and building tools for our society are not in Canada per se but right under our noses. We could have never built such a well-functioning society that is at peace with itself after a very rocky first quarter of a century of our independence without key values such as social equality, or tasa-arvo.

To that key value, we should add other ones like mutual acceptance, respect and equal opportunities.

If we keep to these values, or those that we use to include all members of our society and apply it to others as well, we will be on the right path.

Thus the big picture of our society in this century should be inclusion through mutual acceptance and respect.

Multiculturalism: An outlook on life that dare not speak its name…..

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Donn Flynn*

Remember the prime minister’s speech in Munich attacking multiculturalism exactly one year ago? We take a look here at the way opponents of his ‘muscular liberalism’ thesis have been considering the issue in the 12 months since..

We are a year on from Mr Cameron’s famous speech in Munich in which he issued a broadside against ‘state multiculturalism’.

On that occasion he set out the view that “a much more active, muscular liberalism” was needed to counter what he saw as a tendency for groups to fall back into ethnic ghettos. The danger of “extremism” loomed large in this situation, with the finger firmly pointed as radical Islam as the source for all this discontent.

The speech encouraged counterblasts from a number of commentators and activists who were prepared to defend the concept of multiculturalism and insist that it has a role to play in informing our viewpoints on who we can live together in diverse ethnic societies.

Defending multiculturalism

Multiculturalism: A very short introduction by Ali Rattansi is the most accessible of the defences mounted on behalf of the subject. Drawing on the range of thinking that has gone on this area, Rattansi makes the case that whatever else multiculturalism is, it is not a dogmatic political programme pursued without reference to the real circumstances people and communities find themselves in.

To that extent, it is unhelpful to say, as the prime minister did in his Munich speech, that multiculturalist policies have failed, because the approach has not given rise to a definite set of policies as such. He lists other unjust claims, such as it giving rise to a dogmatically asserted notion of ‘group rights’ which the minority can assert to get its way against the majority community.

Rattansi sees no evidence that has happened in the UK. Concessions occasionally won by some groups, such as religious Sikhs to wear turbans instead of motorcycle crash helmets, or with workplaces respecting Muslim or Jewish holidays, are not group rights since their benefit (or inconvenience) accrues only to individuals from within the respective communities who wish to make use of them. For the non Sikh, Muslim or Jew, and for the non-religious amongst those communities, life goes on pretty much as before.

Neither does multiculturalism uphold any ‘rights’ on the part of ethnic minorities to deny human rights which have the force of law to any member of their communities who require their enforcement. What it can do, however, is provide the intercultural sensitivities which allow the relevance of human rights to be made in appropriate language in circumstances where the assertion of a particular proposition, such as ‘only oppressed women would wear the Islamic veil’, has clouded the discourse.

Integration

Another book that has appeared since Cameron’s speech is the collection of essays edited by Hassan Mahamdallie, Defending Multiculturalism – a Guide for the Movement.

The perspectives of hard left campaigners predominates in this volume, but the core message overlaps with Rattansi: multiculturalism is not a dogmatic approach to policy but rather a set of principles which outline an approach to living in inevitably complex communities based on the need for mutual respect for cultural heritage.

The standout essay is supplied by Tariq Madood in his consideration of the concerns the political elites have for multiculturalism and other approaches. He identifies four currents: assimilation, individual integration, cosmopolitanism, and finally multiculturalism itself.

The first, assimilation, corresponds most closely to Mr Cameron’s call for muscular liberalism and the drive for a ‘stronger national identity.’ It is an approach which essentially ‘blames the victim’ for any discrimination which exists in society since this is considered to be conjured up by the difference which newcomers carry around as part of their physical characteristics and origins. The only course of action is to seek the elimination of all the signs of this difference which antagonises the natives.

The ‘individualist integration’ approach is a step down from this severity in that it at least allows the person concerned to be different in her own private space. The rest of the time she would be expected to assimilate. ‘Cosmopolitanism’ is raised by Madood in rather unsympathetically terms. In favouring an equality of cultures, with no one being allowed to claim the privilege of being the mainstream, cosmopolitanism equally requires the deconstruction of all cultures in order for individuals to ‘pick and mix’ from all the ensuing fragments.

Madood’s caution arises from the fact that this task of dissection will be more amenable to emotionally and intellectually secure members of the majority culture who have the wherewithal and confidence that they will be able to piece together a happy outcome for themselves. For outsider groups, more likely to be wounded by years of disrespect and an existence on the margins, the dismantling happens on a level that is perhaps their sole source of solace and comfort.

One year on…

In the meantime the absence of any coherent sense to what Cameron might have intended as a follow-up to his broadside against multiculturalism might suggest a vacuum at the heart of the thinking of the centre right itself. A recently reply to a Parliamentary question about government plans for its community cohesion policy elicited the response from minister Andrew Stunnell, that the coalition will “trust people to take the lead in their local areas.”

In the context of the prime minister’s thoughts on this issue, paralysis on the part of central government might be the best we can hope for. The space remains open for people working with some version of the multicultural perspective to continue to lead the way.

*This blog entry was originally published on Migrants’ Rights Network, MRN.

The Migrant Tales Manifesto (for Finland and Europe)

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

Thanks to the growing number of supporters, Migrant Tales has become that “voice for those whose views and situation are understood poorly and heard faintly by the media, politicians and public.” During these past years we have read and debated many points of views and have complied some recommendations on how to move forward. 

The list is far from being a final one. We can add and change parts of it but the overriding message should be mutual acceptance, respect and equal opportunities. All these three terms add up to social equality, or tasa-arvo.

Migrant Tales Manifesto 

  • An effective way to make cultural diversity work is by heralding mutual acceptance, respect and equal opportunities
  • We like the term tolerance, or suvaitsevaisuus in Finnish, but acceptance, hyväksyntä, is an even better term that describes how we build bridges between different ethnic groups and minorities in our society
  • New studies should bring out — not hide — how Finns have been, are and will be a culturally diverse society
  • The first step in that acceptance of our cultural diversity are the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the 1.2 million Finns that migrated between 1860 and 1999
  • Cultural management/diversity should be mandatory and started at elementary school
  • We must learn to forgive those countries and people that put us in harm’s way
  • When we advance the rights of minorities we advance those of all
  • A member of society can never learn mutual acceptance and respect if he has low self-esteem
  • Empowering all members of society, especially minorities, helps build self-esteem
  • Inclusion means asking people their opinion, empowering and encouraging them to take part especially in the decision-making process that affects their lives and future in the community
  • Racism, prejudice and all type of discrimination that excludes individuals and groups should be strongly discouraged
  • Discrimination should be seen as a threat to our values and community because it hinders  inclusion
  •  The biggest excluder in society is apathy and silence
  • Politicians that do not speak out against racism and prejudice when given the opportunity are just as responsible as those who encourage such a social ill
  • Inclusion does not only mirror one of our most important values of our society like social equality, it costs the tax payer less and is a more effective pathway to integration
  • In order to free up tax resources for more projects that strengthen inclusion in our society, we should strongly discourage building walls of hate in our society
  • Mutual acceptance means people in our society can make lifestyle choices. These are not only ensured in our laws, but are protected on an individual and group level
  • We treat people with the same respect we treat our own group
  • Equal opportunities are a key component to building a successful, dynamic and content society
  • The more opportunities we offer the more pathways we create to our culturally diverse community
  • Everyone should strive to learn the best Finnish and/or Swedish he or she can.  This is as important as speaking other languages, like the one we learned at home
  • Since we are all different, we learn languages at different paces. Language should, however, never be a tool to discriminate
  • We should strive to keep politicians, policy makers and officials focused on our goal during this century as a country: mutual acceptance, respect and equal opportunities
  • The sum total of these terms is social equality
  • Finland is our home because we are a part of a wonderful country that has accepted and empowered us.

A good immigration integration policy for Finland and Europe

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

One of the biggest challenges to Finland’s new integration program is how effectively it promotes what it sets out to do.  How passionate are we Finns about ethnic and minority equality in this country if the most important piece of the puzzle is still missing: the big picture  and place new Finns and their children have in our society. 

Migrant Tales believes that integration programs like the Perussuomalaiset’s (PS) Nuiva Manifesto would do more harm than good: It would create ghettos and punish people socially who are visible minorities. Moreover, the PS’ manifesto is more of a political statement that exposes the ignorance of its supporters.

Reading many of the thousands of comments on Migrant Tales, it is evident that some Finns and Europeans still believe that one-way integration is the only way to promote the integration of immigrants and minorities.

One of the first important steps that an integration program should take is change the anti-immigrant culture and language prevalent in a society. The term tolerance, or suvaitsevainen, is widely used in Finland but even more-effective terms that officials, politicians and the general public could begin using are mutual acceptance and respect.

Like any good government program, it must be one that is effective. But what does Finland’s integration program aim at accomplishing? Is it facilitating and speeding the integration of immigrants into our society or promoting the opposite due to lack of resources?

Jonathan Lawrence writes on the New York Times her views about how Muslims should be integrated in Europe. Her views are very much what Migrant Tales has been promoting on numerous blog entries.

She writes: “Granting Muslims full religious freedom wouldn’t remove obstacles to political participation or create jobs. But it would at least allow tensions over Muslims’ religious practices to fade. This would avoid needless sectarian strife and clear the way for politicians to address the more vexing and urgent challenges of socioeconomic integration.”

Thus one of the biggest obstacles to the integration, or adaption, of groups like Muslims and others in Europe has been our unrealistic and ethnocentric expectations of how other cultures should adapt to us.

Certainly we can promote as much ethnocentrism as we wish in our society, but the big question is what impact will it have: Will it integrate or exclude?

One of the most important matters to keep in mind when speaking about integration policies is that acceptance and respect must be a two-way process. This means that since we live in a culturally diverse society, it is important that everyone accepts and respects each other.

There is nothing new about this type of behavior. It is how we should treat people in our culture.

If we have the right, and have fought for greater acceptance of minorities like gays and women’s rights, why would we want to undermine the rights of other groups? The fact that we can make lifestyle choices in our society is what makes our society so great.

Another fallacy of the anti-immigration groups is that they believe that people don’t change. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Cultures change constantly because they are highly adaptable.  Free will ensures that we can never be ruled like robots.

Let's keep Finland a good country to live in

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

When I grew up in Finland during part of my childhood and adolescence one matter became clear: I wanted to move here permanently when I became an adult. How did I succeed at making a living in Finland back in the 1980s and beyond? 

Adapting to a country like Finland felt sometimes like sojourning on a long and winding path. Despite the many curves and uncertainties, the right people appeared at the right time. Without them, I would be most likely writing this blog entry from California.

When I moved back to Finland in December 1978, one of the matters that struck me wasn’t the freezing temperatures but how few foreigners lived in the country. At the time there were under 10,000. Many of them weren’t what we’d call “real” foreigners since they were native Finns who had become naturalized citizens of another country.

I had many personal reasons for moving back. One of these was to live in a country that was at peace with itself and wasn’t waging war against other nations. My country of birth, Argentina, wasn’t a very promising prospect to build a home and family since it was ruled at the time by a ruthless military regime that had no respect for human rights. Probably the most important reason of all for moving back here was those wonderful summers I spent in Eastern Finland with my grandparents.

Those two-and-a-half months I spent with my grandparents were like entering a totally different world compared with the mad rush of Los Angeles and Buenos Aires. In summertime near Mikkeli, time nearly stopped amid those dreamy lazy summertime landscapes.

While I could not place my finger on it, there was something that bothered and concerned me about my new home. Many years later I figured out what it was.  It was the near-total disregard by some Finns, the authorities and laws for my fragmented Finnish ancestry. The law determined that only the children of Finnish fathers had citizenship rights.

You could have probably guessed that my first big disappointment took place at the Finnish Immigration Service, which was then called the Aliens’ Office. A cantankerous official snapped back at me for asking her why I had to go through so much red tape to get a residence permit if my mother was Finnish.

“In our opinion, you are not a Finn,” she said with all the weight of the law. “We are not interested if you are engaged to a Finnish woman. What counts is your mother, who is a Finnish citizen.”

It was a devastating knock-out blow by the official that not only left me in pieces but raised questions about my Finnish identity. Was I a Finn?

Even if things have changed for the better, there are some important questions that remain unanswered:  Are those critical pathways to acceptance that encourage integration closing or widening today?

Compared with the past, immigrants, Finns with international backgrounds and most importantly common Finns have shown through Facebook sites like My Finland is International that they are a growing force to be reckoned with.

Finland is a good country to live in but we must defend our good country every day. Despite much of the rhetoric and fear-mongering out there, what threatens our society does not come from abroad but from within.

We must strive to build and most importantly defend a society based on mutual acceptance, respect and equal opportunities for all those that live here.

 

guardian.co.uk: Australia set to recognise Aborigines as first people of continent*

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment:  As Migrant Tales bloggers know, Australia is one of the three countries that have multiculturalism as an official social policy. The other two countries are Canada and United Kingdom. 

Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that constitutional amendments could be put to the Australian people in a referendum that finally recognizes Aborigines as the country’s original inhabitants. Constitutional reform plans to strike off the last clauses of state-sanctioned racial discrimination. 

Writes the guardian.co.uk:  “Section 25 of the constitution recognises that states can disqualify people, such as Aborigines, from voting. Section 51 says federal parliament can make laws based upon a person’s race. Both were put in the constitution in 1901 to prevent certain races from living in areas reserved for white people or from taking up certain occupations.”

Gillard said that “we are big enough and it is the right time” to say yes to accepting our understanding of Australia’s past and constitutional reform.  She said that such actions would foster a more united and reconciled Australia than ever before. 

Do you agree with Australia’s constitutional reform? Should Finland take similar steps to reconcile relations with ethnic groups like the Saami and Romany minority?

*Thank you JusticeDemon for the heads up!

____________

Alison Rourke

Australia is poised to make historic changes to its constitution, recognising Aborigines as the country’s original inhabitants and removing the last clauses of state-sanctioned racial discrimination.

Read whole story.

What we should reflect on Finland’s Independence Day

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

Since I grew up in three countries, I have the opportunity to celebrate three independence days every year. Today is Finland’s turn. What should we be reflecting on this day? Should it be nationalism, patriotism or neither?

Some make a big distinction between nationalism and patriotism. While I consider them basically the same thing, the former is used to stress how much better better one group is compared with another. Patriotism is generally supposed to mean a sense of community.

While the term patriotism has a nationalistic connotation to it, that feeling of community it is supposed to bring out in us is crucial to any well-functioning society. We all belong and work for the betterment of all the members and parts of our society.

A key component of these celebrations, in my opinion, should be the opportunity to embrace our diversity and be inclusive to new members so they may enjoy that sense of community.

We should be a model of a small world community where all peoples from all backgrounds can live together and reap strength and meaning.

Too many independence day celebrations in different countries are just the opposite. They are too nationalistic and do nothing to mend the injustices brought on other groups when these nations were built.

If Karl Marx was the founding ideological father of the former Soviet Union, relatively unknown social thinkers to many like Baron de Montesquieu had a huge impact on the then nascent republic of the United States.

As most people know, The Declaration of Independence of the United States took place on July 4, 1776. A revolution usually gives birth to great men and ideas like that of Thomas Jefferson.

He wrote that if any government didn’t offer its citizens unalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to either alter or abolish such government, even by force.

We must not forget, however, that the those unalienable rights that Jefferson spoke of were meant for white Europeans not for groups like Amerindians never mind blacks, who were slaves at the time.

Argentina’s declaration of independence from Spain happened on July 9, 1816. The country, which had at the beginning of the nineteenth century a population totaling a mere 400,000 people excluding Amerindians, which may have accounted for about a third of the total population, was enormous and practically empty.

Juan Bautista Alberd, one of Argentina’s most influential statesmen of the nineteenth century, coined the phrase: “To govern is to populate.”  His thinking inspired the 1853 constitution, which was one of the most immigrant friendly in the world at the time.

While immigration changed the face of Argentina, it was a death blow to the Amerindians and the country’s black population.

Just as Jefferson forgot the black slaves’ unalienable rights, Alberdi held Amerindians in similar contempt and did not see them forming part in Argentina’s future.

Contrary to the United States and Argentina, Finland’s independence happened such a short time ago (94 years) that my grandparents saw that day. If Finland didn’t have blacks or Amerindians, it had socialists and communists that had no place in our society especially after the 1918 Civil War.

In all three of these countries, persecution and exclusion of groups were factors that helped create these nations.  With this in mind, shouldn’t this important day be a moment when we reflect on the greatness of our society measured in correcting historical injustices, reconciliation as well as promoting social equality, justice and inclusion?

On that this day we should make a vow that we’ll never commit such atrocities as war on others ever again.

If this is what we are celebrating today, I wish from the bottom of my heart to everyone a very wonderful Independence Day!

How well does Finland’s school system educate children with immigrant backgrounds?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

A story on the Guardian  praises Finland’s educational system for setting a “great example” in educating immigrant children. While I am certain there are many success stories out there, are matters that rosy as the London daily claims?

When I read the article I thought about a  survey published in February, which showed 41% of  teachers would want to limit at schools the amount of pupils with immigrant backgrounds?

Like everything else, perspective is key. What do children with immigrant backgrounds say about our educational system? Do they agree whole-heartedly with what the Guradian writes?

Certainly there is a lot of good will in this country to make immigration work. Even so, do we agree about the big picture, or what is the role of these students will be when they become adults in our ever-culturally diverse society?

Certainly there are big differences between schools in eastern Helsinki and small towns like Liperi.

“Liperi is a small town in the region of Pohjois-Karjala and there weren’t too many Russians when we moved there (in the 1990s),” says Aune Rugoyeva. “It was sometimes pretty tough at  middle-school since my classmates chewed me out (for being Russian) and excluded me (from the rest of the group). It was a very lonely place to be.”

The bullying that Aune suffered at the school was possible thanks to the teachers who turned a blind eye, according to her.

One of the most important questions our world-famous educational system should therefore be asking is how does it encourage cultural diversity?

When schools speak of “multiculturalism,” or diversity, do they overlook the important fact that the pupil is culturally hybrid and can move between two or more cultures ambidextrously?  When students with immigrant backgrounds, especially those who are visible minorities and who have lived most of their lives in Finland, are asked to “tell about their cultures” at school do we fall into the trap of “us” and “them?”

Probably the last person to understand a student’s hybridity is a someone who has never been an immigrant never mind lived in two or more cultures simultaneously.

Does our school system strengthen and reinforce the students cultural hybridity as an integral part of Finnishness? Most importantly, does it teach important values such as acceptance and respect of such diversity?

Another matter that the Guardian article did not write about is that teachers in Finland rank almost as high as the police with respect to their conservative views of society.

How to confront anti-immigration parties in the Nordic region

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

The societies of the Nordic countries are still models for the rest of Europe and the world when it comes to social justice, equality, and inclusion. Slower economic growth is not the only threat that they face today, but an ever-growing minority that believes that exclusion of certain groups is acceptable.  

Is there such a thing as selective suspicion or hatred? Can you hate one group and claim to be not hate another? What happens to us if we begin to exclude some and include others in our society?

Far right and right-wing populist parties like the Perussuomalaiset  of Finland, Danish People’s Party, Progress Party of Norway, and Sweden Democrats have grown in recent years thanks to their anti-immigration rhetoric.

If there is a threat to the Nordic welfare state system and the values that uphold it, it is these parties’ anti-immigrant message that goes much deeper and further than meets the eye.

For one, and if we permit it, their view of society creates a paradox that will end up checkmating those values we hold so dear to us. You cannot further the cause of  social equality while on the other hand you aim to make other groups unequal.

Martin Luther King Jr. dealt with centuries of hatred and suspicion when he led and inspired others to the US Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Even if anti-immigration groups are hostile in their approach to their imagined and real enemies like immigrants, we must never succumb to their brand of hatred. We must remember King Jr. words: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

It should be one of the rallying cries of our cause.

Otavan Sanomat: Monikulttuurisia suomalaisia*

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Teksti Anna Kornienko 

Mitä tarkoita olla nuori ja niin sanottu maahanmuuttajataustainen Suomessa? Miten, jos olet asunut melkein koko elämäsi Suomessa ja yksi tai molemmat vanhemmistasi ovat siirtolaisia? Kuulutko silloin tähän maan?

Joillekin nuorille nämä kysymykset voivat tuoda ristiriitaisia tunteita. On kiusattu koulussa ja on koettu eriasteista syrjintää.

”Kun olet lapsi haluat ystäviä ja olla samanlainen kun muut,” sanoo tämä artikkelin kirjoittaja. ”Mitä teet jos sinut ei hyväksytäkään koulussa? Se on hyvin kipeä paikka. Tuntuu, että sinussa olisi joku vika, vaikka asiaa ei todellakaan ole niin.”

Bändilinjan opiskelija Ariela Patterson, jonka isä on yhdysvaltalainen ja äiti suomalainen, uskoo yhden syyn ala-asteella kiusaamiseen olleen se, etteivät opettajat eivät puuttuneet asiaan tarpeeksi vakavasti.

”Minun piti puolustaa itseäni, koska kukaan ei välittänyt,” sanoo Ariela. ”Ikävin on, että myös jotkut aikuiset ovat olleet yhtä tyhmiä kadulla. 1990-luvun alussa oli Suomessa hyvin vähään tumma-ihoisia suomalasia.”

Media-kymppi opiskelija Aune Rugojeva muutti Suomeen Venäjältä, kun hän oli vastaa viisi vuotta. Hänellä oli myös joskus vaikeaa koulussa.

”Liperi on pieni kyllä Pohjois-Karjalassa ja siellä ei asunut paljon venäläisiä kun muutimme sinne,” hän jatkaa. ”Yläasteella oli joskus hyvin vaikea olla koulussa, koska luokkakaverit haukkuivat ja eristivät minut porukasta. Se oli kipeä ja yksinäinen paikka.”

Aune sanoo, että Otavan Opistolla on mukavaa opiskella koska täällä saa olla oma itsensä ja erilainen.

”Täällä kunnioitetaan erilaisuutta, koska on paljon kaikenlaisia opiskelijoita,” Aune sanoo.

Aune, Ariela ja minä olemme samaa mieltä yhdestä asiasta: Erilaisuus on voimaanlähde.

*Tämä juttu julkaistiin Otavan Sanomissa (toukokuu 2011).