Tag: Prejudice

THL survey in Finland says first-generation migrants more likely to experience bullying, physical and sexual harassment

Posted on by Migrant Tales

A new survey shows that first-generation immigrants are more likely to experience bullying, physical threats and sexual harassment than white Finns, according to YLE in English, which cites the National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).

The survey revealed some 32% of “immigrant” children found it difficult to access school welfare officers.

Should the findings of the study surprise us taking into account the negative atmosphere in this country against migrants, minorities and cultural diversity? Moreover, why is so little known about  the health and well-being of “immigrant” children and young people?

THL admitted in the statement that there has been up to know very little information about this groups of minors.

THL researcher, Anni Matikka, said that immigrants are a heterogenous group and that not all of them need help.

“However, there are young immigrants who are facing several challenges in their health and well-being, and therefore these individuals need special support,” she added.

Matikka said that families of children with “immigrant” backgrounds should have access to good information about support and student welfare services. “At the same time they could strive to increase trust in the providers of these services among immigrant background youth,” she said.

 

Näyttökuva 2014-9-17 kello 18.03.28

Read full story here.

 

While sexual harassment (unwanted intimate touching, pressure or coercion to have sex or an offer to buy sex) was common at school with one in three girls experiencing such violence or harassment and one in four in upper secondary schools, the survey showed that sexual harassment was more common among first-generation “immigrant” boys (32% experienced sexual violence) than among “immigrant” girls (28%).

It showed as well that 42% of first-generation immigrant boys had experienced physical violence in the last year compared with 33% second-generation “immigrant” boys.

While the THL survey was done in 2014, in the 1990s matters were either worse or the same.

It is a positive matter and always a step in the right direction that there is concern about the welfare of third-culture Finns at schools. Migrant Tales has written a lot about the matter.

A Somali Finn wrote on our blog that his brief honeymoon with Finland ended abruptly in the 1990s when he started elementary school. He was the school’s first and only black student. “That’s when the bullying started; I was even attacked physically by my classmates,” he said. “Something bad happened to me almost every day at school.”

Read what Ida, Abdulah and Joseph have to say about being Other in Finland here.

I remember when one of my children was harassed and insulted at a Helsinki school in the late-1980s because of ethnic background. The matter that surprised me the most was how little importance the teacher gave to the incident.

The THL survey defines first-generation immigrants as children who weren’t born in Finland and have non-Finnish parents; second generation migrants were born in Finland to non-Finnish parents. Native-born Finns are those whose parents were born in Finland.

Taking into account the definition by THL of first- or second-generation immigrants and native-born Finns, the mere definition highlights part of the problem. Are these children, irrespective if their parents were born elsewhere, “immigrants” or “Finns” with multicultural or third-culture backgrounds?

The term immigrant isn’t a country but an abstract concept. Does it promote inclusion or exclusion when used?

The label used at some Finnish school such as “children with immigrant backgrounds” promotes in my opinion “us” and “them.” Does the label, which is apparently used quite commonly at Finnish schools, promote our values of social equality or does it relegate the person to second- or third-class status?

These types of labels, which are placed by the majority culture on the minority, may shed some light on why teachers and school-welfare workers are so hard to get in touch with by “immigrant” children.

Over 180,000 children and young people in Finland took part in the survey.

 

Effectively challenging intolerance and promoting respect in Finland and elsewhere

Posted on by Migrant Tales

An effective weapon that racists use is to convince you that you don’t count.

One of the overriding matters that I’ve learned time and again is that silence is the worst decision you can make when challenging intolerance. There are many effective ways to challenge racism like a simple question: I disagree with you. Can we talk about this?

Sometimes debating racism with a racist is a waste of time. Since people with low self-esteem tend to show more signs of prejudice than those that are more sure of themselves, ignoring racists is one effective way of not giving them their daily shot of attention at your expense.

Since racists aim to provoke you and attract media and social media attention to themselves and their mistaken causes, silence is generally a poor way to challenge such intolerance.

Mäntyharju Perussuomalaiset (PS)*  concilwoman Tanja Hartonen-Pulkka is a good example of how a politician can burn her fingers when spreading ant-immigration rhetoric.

What the councilwoman of the eastern Finnish town of Mäntyharju wrote was challenged on social media forums and finally her original blog posting on Uusi Suomi was taken down.

In the 2011 parliamentary elections there were some candidates in the South Savo region who openly were in favor of tightening immigration policy and scaling back funding for immigrant associations and activities.

Kansainvälinen Mikkel, a registered association founded in 2010 and based in Mikkeli, sent an email to each of these candidates and asked them how tightening immigration policy and scaling back funding to immigrant groups would affect migrants living in this region of Finland.

The responses that the association got from the candidates were surprising. They weren’t defiant but almost apologetic trying to state that they weren’t against immigrants. One MP from Pertunmaa, Jari Leppä, said he had mistakenly ticked the wrong box.

Kuvankaappaus 2014-8-29 kello 9.07.36

Center Party MP Jari Leppä’s email response above to Kansainvälinen Mikkeli. He admits ticking the wrong box. He said, however, that Finland should take a strong stand against undocumented migrants and should deport convicted migrants.

 

Since parliamentary elections will take place in April 2015, we should not only be vigilant but engage politicians from all parties who are trying to lure voters by spreading intolerance and suspicion against migrants and minorities.

The most important matter to keep in mind is to keep your cool and state as clearly as possible: I disagree with your point of view. Can we discuss this?

You should do a lot of reading when engaging others in a debate on immigration and cultural diversity. Your best shield is information. The more you know, the stronger your argument will be.

By engaging anti-immigration politicians in a debate, we send an important message to them: We disagree with what you say and challenge your arguments.

As with the case of Hartonen-Pulkka proves, anti-immigration politicians will be forced to think twice before they spew their hate rhetoric again.

* The Finnish name for the Finns Party is the Perussuomalaiset (PS). The English names of the party adopted by the PS, like True Finns or Finns Party, promote in our opinion nativist nationalism and xenophobia. We therefore prefer to use the Finnish name of the party on our postings.

How the Finnish media continues to be part of the problem by reinforcing stereotypes and racist perceptions of migrants and minorities

Posted on by Migrant Tales

A news story about migrant crime was published by the Lahti-based Etelä-Suomen Sanomat with a provocative drawing of a black man’s arms handcuffed. Migrant Tales got in touch with the reporter that wrote the story and asked why it was considered news at the end of July if it was based on a study published by The National Research Institute of Legal Policy on June 2 and published by other newspapers in mid-June?

The journalist said that the reason why the daily published the story was to look at the problems that some migrants face in this country and how to find solutions to them.

Moreover, the study was given ample coverage last month in dailies like Turun Sanomat.

Näyttökuva 2014-7-25 kello 9.59.09

Read full story (in Finnish) here.

There is a big difference in the news angle if we compare the story published by the online version of Etelä-Suomen Sanomat and what others published last month.

The stories that were published in June claimed that not only was migrant crime higher per capita than that of so-called ethnic white Finns (kantaväestö), but made an important point: Even if crime statistics may show differences between migrant and ethnic Finns, you cannot group and generalize about nationalities when looking at crime.  

Labeling and victimizing migrants with crime statistics has been a favorite political pastime of parties like the Perussuomalaiset (PS)* and lazy journalists that regurgitate their rhetoric.

The journalist who wrote the Etelä-Suomen Sanomat story makes a disingenuous comment at the bottom of the online story stating that researchers of The National Research Institute of Legal Policy fear that studying migrant crime will label different national and ethnic groups.

Hmmm…isn’t that what the story written by the journalist is doing?

The Etelä-Suomen Sanomat story is yet another sad example of how the media is part of the problem and how it continues to spread stereotypes about migrants and minorities.

Read full study by The National Research Institute of Legal Policy (in Finnish) here.

* The Finnish name for the Finns Party is the Perussuomalaiset (PS). The names adopted by the PS, like True Finns or Finns Party, promote in our opinion nativist nationalism and xenophobia. We therefore prefer to use the Finnish name of the party on our postings. 

Challenging prejudices against migrants in Finland should be a priority. But who’s doing this?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Dr. Gareth Rice’s  claim that foreign academics are being bypassed for permanent tenures in favor of Finnish academics raises a wider issue that migrants and minorities face in Finland. Finding a job is one matter for an immigrant in this country but being hired on a permanent basis is quite another story.

One may ask why migrant unemployment is two to three times higher than the national average and why migrants have so little say over matters that exclude them from living as equal members of society.

Certainly one answer to the above is that too many people in this country believe in simple answers to difficult questions. If this is the case, it shouldn’t surprise us why prejudice has a significant say at the job interview, when a policeman pulls you over because of your ethnic background or when you’re not allowed in a night club because you aren’t white.

All of the above happen in Finland because they are allowed to happen. As such discrimination takes place, they erode credibility in our values and institutions, undermine opportunities and economic growth.

The issue isn’t that discrimination exists in Finland and more than we’d like to admit, the point is why there’s so little enthusiasm to challenge these types of injustices. It’s easier to believe the outright lies of anti-immigration groups like the Perussuomalaiset (PS)* than to facts, which take us from our prejudice comfort zone.

A good recent example of how Finland continues to play down discrimination and believe in urban myths is Pekka Myrksylä’s blog, which reveals migrants get less social security than Finns and why the majority of them live in poverty.

If we believe groups like the PS and anti-immigration politicians from all political parties in Finland, migrants only come to Finland to live off our generous welfare state (sic!). The message is clear: migrants are lazy and get more social welfare than Finns.

Myrskylä’s blog, which got little attention in the media, sheds light on not only Dr. Rice’s case but on that of many migrants living in this country. The impact of discrimination coupled with urban tales is one way migrants are socially excluded and discriminated with near-impunity.

Näyttökuva 2014-7-15 kello 12.10.16

Read full story here.

 

While the number of foreign academics has grown in recent years, numbering 1-5 of all staff, only 1 in 25 foreign academics had permanent jobs at some universities, according to YLE in English.

If a foreign academic is hired on a non-permanent basis, it means that he’s not entitled to sick leave or holiday pay.

One factor that may affect the hiring of migrants to permanent jobs in Finland is an expectation that such people must assimilate to the majority culture even if two-way adaption should be the rule. The expectation that you must be white and speak Finnish almost as a native leaves the field wide open for discrimination.

While there are exceptions, the latter leaves a disturbing message: No matter how long you live in this county you will never be like “us.” Just get used to being a second-class citizen. You’ll be entitled to social welfare but you’ll get much less than a native.

If too many employers and institutions believe in assimilation and have little respect for cultural diversity, it explains in part why migrant unemployment is two to three times higher than the national average and why Finns are chosen for jobs over foreigners at job interviews.

More transparency

It’s odd that a courageous person like Dr. Rice is calling for more transparent hiring practices at Finnish universities.

Dr. Rice moved to Finland in 2008 and claims that he has lost out on permanent positions to less experienced candidates because he’s not a Finn.

“When I first moved here,” he was quoted as saying on YLE in English, “my line manager told me I was good for the university’s ambition to ‘become more international.’ But when I started looking for a permanent position, in 2009, there was a change in how I was handled.”

Challenging prejudices in Finland should be a much higher priority than now. Since we haven’t done enough work on this front, it explains in part why we continue to be prisoners of our prejudices and why foreign academics and migrants get sidelined for jobs. Employers forget that when they do this they shoot themselves in the leg.

Those who continue to discriminate and lobby for worse migrant rights in the country are the ones that are impoverishing Finland. Discrimination and racism are expensive business for any society because they rob it of new talent,  new blood, new jobs, growth and opportunities.

How poor must Finland get to understand that discrimination and intolerance are costing it an arm and a leg?

 

* The Finnish name for the Finns Party is the Perussuomalaiset (PS). The names adopted by the PS, like True Finns or Finns Party, promote in our opinion nativist nationalism and xenophobia. We therefore prefer to use the Finnish name of the party on our postings. 

Challenging urban tales about migrants and ourselves should be our first and foremost priority

Posted on by Migrant Tales

After contributing regularly for Migrant Tales and reading and answering some of the over 30,000 comments we have received in the past seven years, a bigger picture emerges. This has been reinforced by my work at a folk high school, where the majority of the students on campus aren’t white Finns.

languages

As Don Flynn of Migrants’ Right Network wrote, it’s crucial especially today that migrant community groups start working together to challenge the urban tales spread by opportunistic politicians in order to make a positive case for migration.

One such campaign he mentions is #MigrantsContribute!

He writes: ”[The group is] a social media-style name for a campaign that aims to bust into the mainstream with its core message that, far from being the unwelcome border crossers looking for a free ride so often presented by unscrupulous politicians and headline writers, migrants come to the UK full of hope and expectation that they will have the opportunity to contribute fully as fully rounded people in British society, and not merely exist as dehumanized factors of economic production.”

In order to get into the mindset of the far-right populist and those that spread anti-immigration rhetoric, it’s important to spot the red herring(s).

Since some politicians of the Perussuomalaiset (PS)* of Finland, an anti-EU, anti-immigration, homophobic and especially anti-Islam party, built their political careers on a message of intolerance, it’s clear that they seek today to find some kind of legitimacy.

An effective way of doing this is by giving a more mainstream image of the party and of oneself.

While such political parties and politicians may want to forge a new image of themselves, the context hasn’t changed at all.

They use underhanded and cheap-trick arguments to achieve a mainstream facelift. These arguments change constantly because they are based mostly on hearsay. If they stayed put, they’d be exposed as lies in many cases.

One typical argument used today by anti-immigration politicians is the following: We aren’t against immigration.”

The problem with this odd affirmation is that they are against immigration. It’s like the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale. A white migrant Prince Charming appears, kisses the native Sleeping Beauty, she awakens and they live happily ever after in their white society.

If we dig a bit deeper into this claim by some anti-immigration parties and politicians, we’ll find another layer that is highly revealing. By wanting only white, or the right migrants, our real aim is to keep our society white. Thus anti-immigration groups are against non-white migrants because they loathe cultural diversity.

Another important matter that Migrant Tales has taught me is to be especially careful with those that offer simplistic answer to complex questions like integration.

One of the most common simplistic arguments used in Finland – in my opinion – is learn Finnish or Swedish and problem solved: You’re integrated!

Learning the local language is crucial and plays an important part in the migrants adaption to his or her new homeland, but it isn’t, however, a panacea to integration.

By giving into simplistic arguments like “just learn the language,” we forget other equally important issues like why integration should be the rule but too often everyone expects you to assimilate. There are many other factors we lose sight of as well: acceptance, inclusion, respect for cultural diversity, identifying pitfalls like poor performance of third-culture children at school, ethnic profiling, high migrant unemployment, poverty, health and social exclusion.

 

* The Finnish name for the Finns Party is the Perussuomalaiset (PS). The names adopted by the PS, like True Finns or Finns Party, promote in our opinion nativist nationalism and xenophobia. We therefore prefer to use the Finnish name of the party on our postings. 

 

Jussi Halla-aho: “Do not tolerate the intolerant one”

Posted on by Migrant Tales

 

Migrant Tales insight: We get a lot of email and tip-offs from our readers. The latest one we got is of three blog entry translations in English of Perussuomalaiset (PS)* MEP Jussi Halla-aho, who was convicted for ethnic agitation. This last one, Do not tolerate the intolerant one, was published in Scripta on December 20, 2007. 

Apart from understanding how racism in Finland thrives and which arguments are used to spread hatred of other groups, one matter is clear from all three writings: They are repulsive and we apologize if anyone is offended by them. The writings have nothing to do with a PhD’s critical thinking; they are simply urban tales and prejudices that have been piled high and deep. 

Another important aspect that we must acknowledge about these writings is that they are hostile towards migrants and intended for gullible Finns. They are hateful writings that fuel prejudice, which in turn fuels social exclusion. 

Acceptance of these two anti-immigration parties this week in the ECR with “MEPs with criminal records,” proves that shoplifting is a worse offense for a politician today than being sentenced for ethnic agitation. It sadly exposes as well why racism has grown in Europe and why mainstream politicians and the media have helped fuel such intolerance. 

Our only motive for publishing these blog entries is so that other Europeans who don’t speak Finnish can read what kind of politician Halla-aho is. 

For more insight into the PS, take a look Far-right and anti-immigration quotes in English by the PS.

* The Finnish name for the Finns Party is the Perussuomalaiset (PS). The names adopted by the PS, like True Finns or Finns Party, promote in our opinion nativist nationalism and xenophobia. We therefore prefer to use the Finnish name of the party on our postings. 

_____________________

Quotes within the text taken from the summaries of EU legislation, “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia.”

Through the Gates of Vienna- blog I came across a proposition made in the EU concerning legal actions in the combat against racism and xenophobia. The EU has never interested me very much. Maybe it should.

“The purpose of this framework decision is to ensure that racism and xenophobia are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties in the European Union (EU).”

The beginning is already a promising one. Because racism, being a perception of the existence of different races, perhaps of their differences and of their relative value hierarchy, is an opinion and xenophobia an emotional state, I can’t quite figure out what the case might be here, other than attempting to legislate one’s thoughts.

Nonetheless, all depends on the definitions of “racism” and “xenophobia”:

“Public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin.”

Is it, therefore, intended to criminalize the feelings of repugnance?

“Certain forms of conduct as outlined below, which are committed for a racist or xenophobic purpose, are punishable as criminal offences:

    – public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin;

    – public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia;

    – public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

Instigating, aiding or abetting in the commission of the above offences is also punishable.”

Crimes matching the descriptions above surely take place in Europe. For example, the leftists in Sweden have publicly incited to assault skinheads (conviction), Muslims have on separate occasions incited to kill infidels (conviction) and Jews (religion and ethnicity), and have either denied the holocaust and the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, or in turn glorified them. Audio materials have been handed out in the mosques of Britain and Germany, in which all these deeds are being perpetrated.

But perhaps these aren’t the sort of crimes that the EU signifies.

Speaking seriously, the first two types of crimes are interesting. Incitement to violence or intimidation is easy to define. For instance, if I were to urge the killing of Muslims or threatened to do so myself, I would be the perpetrator of these acts. But what is public incitement to hatred or a public insult? Is the insult defined by one’s false and negative argument towards another, or rather by a true one that – although true – happens to violate the target?

Muslims are offended if Islam is called a violent, pedophile religion that oppresses women. Are these claims insulting, in the sense that the EU means them to be? With the mouths of the most highly learned, Islam calls to a holy war and to conquest the world. A significant proportion of Muslims are either ready for religious violence or silently condone it. Those highest learned ones in Islam refer to women as creatures lower to man, who are to be struck unless they otherwise obey, and to be raped unless they are dressed modestly. In almost all Islamic countries little girls are married off to older men, and there are no influential schools of thought to call these practices into question. Even the founder of the religion was a pedophile in the current sense of the word.

Since all criticism made towards Muslims or Islam violates the Muslim people, taking their offense into account and making it a yardstick of some sort only leads to a situation where the Muslim people and Islam, unlike any other, are not to be criticized. Surely a situation such as this can not be tolerable.

I understand that there are also deliberate violations of Islam. For example, rolling the Koran around in pig’s shit and uploading it to YouTube as performance art would obviously be a deliberate insult. But would the purpose of prohibiting such an act be equal treatment for all, or would it be intended to protect only the Muslim people?

In October [2007], Swedish neo-Nazis in Lund destroyed works of art in the History of Sex- exhibition using axes and iron pipes. They were motivated by the desire to prevent presentation of “perverted art”. One of the pieces was called “Piss Christ”, a statue of Jesus on the cross submerged in a container of the artist Anders Serrano’s urine.

The museum’s director considered this to be an attack on democracy and freedom of expression. Maybe it was, but I think it’s pretty obvious that Piss Christ had no other function than to offend Christians. The art crowds themselves would probably call it deconstruction, de-dramatization and so forth, but is the EU going to allow the analogous de-dramatization and deconstruction of Islam as well? When the Swedish Democrats Party published Danish cartoons on its website, security forces in accordance with instructions handed from a ministerial level, and in violation of the law, closed the site.

I do not remember the art crowds being all that concerned on an attack on democracy and freedom of expression. Although these cartoons, after all, contained a political message that was both clear and topical, as opposed to (at least in my opinion) Piss Christ.

Let it be noted that when an organization called Suomen Sisu published the same drawings on their website, the Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja condemned the act and Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen called for forgiveness from the Muslims burning the world. Finally the case ended up with the state prosecutor. And even here, I do not recall anyone to have been very concerned about democracy and freedom of speech.

Therefore, in the EU of the future, does the framework only concern those who have the intelligence to be offended? Does it also conclude the de-dramatization of Christianity?

What is meant by incitement to hatred? For I can not decide what kind of sensations some of my writings, for instance on the delinquency of immigrants, evoke in the reader. I admit, of course, that my intention is to stir up anti-immigration attitudes. This results from the fact that immigration is, in its current form, fatal to those things which I consider important, and there isn’t going to be a shift in the immigration policy unless people’s (=voters) attitudes change. I can not criticize immigration without criticizing the doings and beings of immigrants. Criticizing them, needless to say, is likely to increase the negative feelings towards the more relevant groups of immigrants. This is inevitable.

If, therefore, I were to argue that the Somali immigration and their emigration are a disaster for Finland, would it be considered hate-mongering towards the Somalis? In a way, yes, but mostly not. For I am not judging them by their color, what God they believe in or what kind of food they eat, but rather by what their presence means to Finland. If their actions and the way they carry themselves are due to the fact that they are Somalis, I can not help it.

The anti-immigrant and anti-immigration attitudes stem from the fact that certain groups of immigrants are living like pigs in a field. It is natural that knowledge of what these groups are doing is only adding to the negative attitudes, even hatred, towards said groups. By EU’s definition, therefore, knowledge alone can be incitement to hatred that is punishable. But can facts – and presenting them – be criminalized? Well, they can of course, but is that what they want to do?

It is interesting that the one of the subjects under protection includes “belief”, a.k.a. opinion. However, the definition of the crime will ultimately lead into being permitted to have only one and the same view of immigrants and immigration. Any criticism of Islam or the immigrants could be interpreted as offensive or hate-mongering. What sort of “beliefs” are this legislation meant to protect? Is hate-mongering against anti-immigrants or nationalists a punishable crime?

And what about the penalties? Proposals include such strong echoes from the Soviet Union, that it creeps the back of my spine:

* For public incitement to “racial hatred”, terms of imprisonment for a minimum amount no shorter than two years

* Alternative penalty of community service or participation in training

* Confiscation of all material used in the crime

* Denial of public assistance for legal entities

The latter mentioned might contain the possibility to withhold political party subsidies from organizations that criticize immigration.

The EU is busy imprisoning and organizing re-educative camps to those who express the wrong opinion. Perhaps the day when the mail delivers bad news or the door bell rings at night is not as far away as I thought. I’ve always laughed at the paranoia that is so common amongst the nationalist circles, but then again two internet writers have just been summoned to Districts for incitement. In addition, we know that the ex-Commissioner on National Minorities Mikko Puumalainen, before moving on to other tasks, frantically produced requests for investigating hate-mongers, so who’s to know what more is to come from consultation?

With these sentiments, I would like to say something to all my fellow-writers who are concerned about their future: You shouldn’t take your own life too seriously. On behalf of your convictions, you should go to jail or get shot. Everything we can accomplish by crawling or repenting vanishes, when our time is up. Rather soon, that is. Instead the consequences of our choices live on. We remember Andrej Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn because they did not give up for their personal good, but we do not remember the millions of Ivan Ivanovs, who apologized for what they said and carried out thorough self-criticism. If they had not given up, the end of the Soviet Union might have become a little more swiftly.

Totalitarianism is to be forced to control by violence, as it will reveal itself. If it manages to rule simply by fear, silencing wrong-thinkers one at a time, people think they are living in freedom and the cancer menacing our society grows undisturbed.

 

What Finnish school children from a small town think about racism?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

During the European Action Week Against Racism (March 15-23), I had the opportunity to visit an elementary and middle school in rural Eastern Finland. The event, which was organized by the Red Cross, asked elementary and middle school students to do a posters pointing out the good and bad things about Finland. Some did short plays demonstrating intolerance.*

Since the educational system in Finland is one of the best in the world according the Program for International Student Assessment (Pisa) results, we’re speaking of well-informed students.

Gathering from some of the posters that the students made, I’d be surprised if some of the students didn’t list prejudice as a negative factor about Finland. What do these posters reveal to us about some of the challenges we face in strengthening our Nordic values, which rest firmly on social equality and against all forms of intolerance?

Here’s some food for thought:

  • The posters don’t mention anywhere multiculturalism, or about our ever-growing culturally diverse society;
  • Insight: Cultural diversity is here and now. It’s not tomorrow or after tomorrow. What positive steps must we take in order that everyone, irrespective of his or her ethnic and cultural background, is treated with respect?
  • Since there are very few migrants in this town, its’s clear students see foreigners as refugees, which are a minority of Finland’s migrant population;
  • Insight: How do we change this image to show that migrants bring progress, hard work and new blood? Aren’t these new inhabitants going to pay taxes and some take care of our elderly?
  • The most revealing matter of the day happened at the cafeteria during lunchtime. The schools only foreign student was eating alone at the table.
  • Insight: What steps can be taken at schools to bring students together, even if they have different backgrounds?

Certainly the reason why the refugee student eats alone may be her fault as well. Even so, one of the complaints of some refugee students who attended the same school was their difficulty in making friends with Finnish classmates.

Some of the short 3-5-minute plays that the students performed showed how prejudice works. According to them, underestimating a migrant’s intelligence or language skills by speaking slowly like to a child were seen as clear cases of prejudice.

IMG_3530This poster lists unemployment benefits, free schools, associations like the Red Cross and refugee centers as “positive” factors about Finland, while cold winters, people with prejudices, cold winters, expensive country, unclear ingredients listings and language as negative factors.

IMG_3514

This poster by middle school student listed free school meals, peace, free elementary school, nature, high educational level and other factors as reasons why migrants should move to Finland. Bad things were junk food and litter in the yard.

IMG_3557

Some posters didn’t mention any negative things like this one above. According to this poster, landscape, school, health, lakes, security and food are factors why you should move to Finland.

IMG_3531

This picture was added Monday. It is the only poster that claims racism as something negative about Finland. Other negative factors that it lists include prejudice, taxes, alcoholism. Some positive factors include brave people, beautiful nature, warm summers, health care, friendly people, free comprehensive school.

So what do Finnish school children from a small town think about racism?

Answer: It’s wrong.

Even if these children show that there is hope that we will be successful in building a society that based on respect for others, a lot of work still remains to be done.

* Even if it was the Action Week Against Racism,  term racism was only mentioned once in a poster. They preferred instead to use  prejudice as a synonym for the former. 

The Ukraine-Russia crisis can spark ethnic hatred across Europe

Posted on by Migrant Tales

The crisis and standoff between the Ukraine and Russia is worrying for many reasons. One of these, which isn’t being covered enough by the European media, is how the crisis is fueling xenophobia and age-old diehard ethnic hatred. 

There has been, however, a lot of coverage of the ethnic crisis between the Ukrainians and Russians.

Kuvankaappaus 2014-3-7 kello 23.30.24

The 2009 EU-MIDIS’r survey on European Union minorities and discrimination shows that intolerance is a big issue in the region.  Why do these problems still exist in Europe? Read full report here.

In Finland, where anti-Russian sentiment has always been strong, two MPs warned this week that the crisis in the Ukraine could fuel anti-Russian sentiment and target individual Russians in the country. While Finland is one case, what could happen in countries like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, where there live large Russian-speaking minorites?

If the crisis in the Ukraine escalates, it’s pretty certain it will not only have a negative knock-on effect on ethnic Russians in other countries, but on migrants and visible minorities as well.

Apart from the rise of neo-Nazi groups and anti-Semitism, there is concern that 150,000 ethnic Hungarians living in the Ukraine could be targeted by far-right nationalistic groups, according to AFP.

Extremist and right-wing populist parties, which can take the far-right path in the snap of a finger, could use the present crisis to boost their anti-immigration and anti-minority message as European MEP elections near on May 25.

In Finland, however, the crisis in the Ukraine has hit the anti-EU and anti-immigration Perussuomalaiset (PS) party. In a recent poll, support for the populist party fell below 17%, according to YLE in English. The last time support for the party dipped below 17% was in 2012.

Some analysts believe that the crisis in the Ukraine may have scared some of PS’ supporters due to its anti-EU stance. Possibly being a part of the EU is not such a bad idea after all when it comes to Finland’s national security.

Meanwhile, it’s clear that a country that passes anti-gay laws like Russia isn’t very credible when it criticizes human rights violations in the European Union.

In an official annual human rights report on Europe, Russia highlighted the problems that were taking place in Finland. It cited, among other violations, that Finland hadn’t ratified Convention No. 169, which deals specifically with the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, and discrimination against the Romany minority, Somalis and Russians.

While all the above should concern us, the question is why is Europe such a tinderbox when it comes to ethnicity? Wasn’t anti-Semitism, ethnic hatred and hocuspocus ethnic myths laid to rest after the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945?

Apparently not.

Does Finland promote two-way or one-way adaption of immigrants?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Our integration law promotes two-way adaption as opposed to assimilation, which is a one-way process. Section 17 of the Finnish Constitution states that each person living in this country has the right to maintain and develop their own language and culture. What do these two important laws mean in practice and how are they applied?

Sensible Finns understand what cultural diversity implies but a poll published by Helsingin Sanomat Friday shows that 53% fully (22%) or partially agreed (31%) that immigrants should aim at becoming as Finnish as possible. That compares with 48% in 2011 an 37% in 2006.

While these types of surveys are problematic because they reveal more the prejudices of the respondents, market research companies and the newspapers that publish the poll results, it shows, among other things, general expectations that give little to no insight on how to move ahead as our society becomes more diverse.

What does being Finnish imply never mind mean? Are we using the nineteenth century cultural yardstick or a totally different one in this century to make our society more inclusive to new groups who are and want to be Finnish according to their cultural backgrounds?

The crux of the matter, in my opinion, is that our ideal is two-way adaption but the rule is one-way assimilation.

This can be even be seen in our exemplary educational system, where we still promote “us” and “them” by openly labeling third-culture pupils as children “with immigrant backgrounds” (maahanmuuttajataustainen).

I personally believe that Finland is on the right track and should continue to promote and defend its present laws that ensure cultural diversity.

If you think of it, the whole debate on immigration and refugees presently taking place in this country hinges on one important point: acceptance of cultural diversity. Do we accept people moving to our country who are from different cultures? What must we give up in order to accommodate these new groups and what must these newcomers do to be included?

We have always spoken of two-way acceptance and respect on Migrant Tales. Why? Because it is inclusive and the most effective way to integrate people.

Why would you want to have a system that fuels prejudice and intolerance? At the end of the day our prejudices will cost us dearly because they will fuel social exclusion and high unemployment already so evident in many European countries.

Even if Finland is a society that has the right tools and resources to promote two-way acceptance and respect between groups, or cultural diversity, our prejudices continue to be part of the problem. They don’t permit us to have a clearer bigger picture of how to move ahead.

The answers and models that can be employed are lying right under our very noses. We have good laws and Nordic democratic values in this country to build a vibrant society where we can celebrate our diversity.

The challenge then is applying these laws and values to include Finland’s new inhabitants.

It’s that simple.

Dana: You are not welcome in Finland – go back to where you came from!

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Dana

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Yes, who invited you here?

If you don’t like it here, why don’t you go back to where you came from? This statement is aimed to tire and weaken you. It’s a dark trick with a dark ending for you.

And who knows about  those dark goals better than I?

Back home you can hear the same statements still ringing in your head: “Go back to where you came from.”

Sometimes some foreigners who are working with Finns attack other foreigners; it’s as if Finland were fat meat and they want to eat it all. Or maybe they think they are the only ones who think they have the right to come and stay Finland…So the big question is if i should eat only veggies? Veggies are like gold in Finland. They are expensive as meat.

The first important lesson you will learn in Finland from politicians, the government, laws, courts, ombudsmen, parliament and all those organizations that are supposed to look after your rights is that u r not welcome in this country.

There are no human rights organization that will defend you either… oh yes, there are some, but they don’t really mean to defend your human rights. If something happens and you approach them, they will listen to you and repeat the following: ”Sorry, sorry that’s not our job…Oh Finnish law works like this. Oh this is the situation, this is how the law works. ”

So be careful

because

in the name of the law what is illegal is legal.