We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Security

I was tipped to this news story from Finland right about the same time that Paul Weston’s latest essay (see previous post) arrived in our inbox. The conjunction of the Finnish story with the British one brought me up short — this politically correct multicultural nonsense finally seems to have attained the status of mass insanity.

In the name of diversity, or tolerance, or respect, or whatever fuzzy warm euphemism is currently in vogue, Western Europeans seem increasingly unwilling to preserve their language, their cultures, and their physical security.

From yesterday’s Helsingin Sanomat:

Courts say immigration officials give too much weight to statements by Security Police

The Helsinki and Kuopio Administrative Courts say that the Directorate of Immigration has given too much weight to statements by the Security Police (SUPO) when making decisions on residence permits for foreigners, and on applications for citizenship. In the statements, SUPO assesses the possible threats that a foreign citizen might pose to public order and the security of the state.

In just over six months, the courts have overturned five negative decisions on citizenship and residence permit applications that the Directorate has made on the basis of SUPO statements.

In its statements, SUPO has said that an Afghani, a Pakistani, a Somali, and two Iranians would pose a threat to state security and public order.

According to the courts, the Directorate of Immigration cannot reject a foreigner’s application simply because the Security Police feels that the person is a threat to national security.

This is truly stupefying. To repeat the incomprehensible: the Directorate of Immigration cannot reject a foreigner’s application simply because the Security Police feels that the person is a threat to national security.

Finland’s own security services are not permitted to designate dangers to its national security.

Well, then, who is? The Ministry of Finance? The director of the National Ballet? The immigrants themselves?

The issue is no longer Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The issue is: who will guard us at all?

But there’s more:
- - - - - - - - - -

In its statements, SUPO does not say what information its assessments are based on. The Directorate of Immigration has therefore rejected an application whenever SUPO has considered a person to be dangerous, or a threat to state security.

“Making the information public would certainly cause great difficulties for the Security Police, if a foreigner were known to be a member of a terrorist organisation, for instance, and if the information had come from a foreign intelligence service”, says Jorma Vuorio, Director-General of the Directorate.

Well, duh.

This is starting to sound like the standard New York Times position: nothing is allowed to be kept secret except the NYT’s own sources.

And now consider the story from yesterday’s Daily Mail:

A town is being stripped of scores of public sector jobs because its residents are “too white and British”.

The Prison Service is relocating the posts to a nearby city where there are more ethnic minorities.

[…]

It is the first known case of its kind, but MPs warned similar moves could secretly be taking place across the country as civil servants are under enormous pressure from ministers to boost the number of ethnic minorities working in the public sector.

This is madness. The British would do well to heed the words of the Bard himself, from King Lear (Act I, Scene 1, spoken by Kent):

                                                     Be Kent unmannerly
       When Lear is mad. What wouldst thou do, old man?
       Think’st thou that duty shall have dread to speak
       When power to flattery bows? To plainness honour’s bound
       When majesty falls to folly. Reverse thy doom;
       And in thy best consideration check
       This hideous rashness.

Majesty has fallen to folly. ’Tis time to check this hideous rashness.


Hat tip: Harry Palmer, via email.