Friday, May 04, 2007

Ethnic Agitation in Finland

Here are some additional updates on the legal case being mounted against the Finnish blogger Mikko Ellilä.

When you read through the charges against Mr. Ellilä, you will encounter in his quoted writings statements about race and intelligence. I want to make my personal opinion clear: I do not credit any of the theories that assert a genetically-based racial component to intelligence.

Unfortunately, clinical scientific investigation into the subject of race and intelligence was brought to a screeching halt back in the late 1960s and early 1970s as the new ideology of political correctness settled into the academic institutions of the West. Asking the question “Is there a racial component to human intelligence?” became impossible. No professor could receive funding, publish his writings easily, or maintain his professional reputation if he attempted to venture into these stormy waters. The entire topic was simply shut down.

If political ideology were no constraint, a thorough scientific examination of the issue would almost certainly show that there is no persistent measurable correlation between race and intelligence among human beings. Thomas Sowell has examined the topic at length, and his conclusions are convincing. But until scientists are able to engage in free and open inquiry on the subject, it will continue to be pushed into the fringes and keep company with cranks, charlatans, and outright Nazis.

In any case, it is an outrage against the principles of free speech that Mikko Ellilä should be subject to a police inquiry based solely upon the statement of his opinions.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Lot, who blogs at Laiva on täynnä has a report on the accusations that were mounted against Mr. Ellilä:

Here’s quick-and-dirty translation of accusations that were sent by Ombudsman for Minorities Mikko Puumalainen to Finnish police.

Preliminary investigation, ethnic agitation

1. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman

The duties of Ombudsman include prevention of ethnic discrimination, promotion of good ethnic relations, advancing the status and legal protection of ethnic minorities and foreigners in society as well as supervising compliance with the prohibition of ethnic discrimination (Law regarding Ombudsman for Minorities and National Discrimination Tribunal 1 §, 660/2001).

2. Preliminary investigation

We thereby request National Bureau of Investigation to investigate whether an article “Society consists of People” found from http://mikkoellila.thinkertothinker.com fulfills the characteristics of a crime named Ethnic agitation. In addition, we ask you to initiate actions so that the article in consideration can be removed from the internet. Parts of the article attached here.

3. General issues regarding criminal law, chapter 11, 8 §

Freedom of expression has been secured by Finnish constitution (731/1999) 12 §. Freedom of expression consists of - according to the law in question — right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.

Penal Code of Finland, (39/1889) chapter 11, 8 § criminalizes Ethnic agitation. The chapter in question restricts the freedom of speech. It is not possible to justify dissemination or distribution of racist statements or other information by appealing to freedom of speech. Penal Code chapter 11, 8§ criminalizes dissemination of statements that where a certain race, a national, ethnic or religious group or a comparable group is threatened, defamed or insulted. It is customary to classify the characteristics of the chapter in the following manner.

Statement or other information. A statement or other information mentioned in the chapter can be given by verbally, in writing, by illustration or by gestures. It is essential that the statement or other information include threats, defamation or insults described by the penal code chapter.

Dissemination or distribution. In order for the characteristics (of the chapter) to be realized, the target of the statement must be an open group of people. According to the legal praxis, dissemination or distribution described by the chapter can be done via Internet.

Threatening, defamation or insulting. Threatening means e.g. threat by violence or threat by theft. The characteristics of defamation and insulting are comparable to offence against personal reputation (described in penal code Chapter 24 section 9). Defamation is e.g. spreading false information about ethnic groups being guilty of crimes or similar actions. Insults may contain truthful statements that have a purpose of offending. It is typical that insulting statements are not truthful. If this is the case, the lack of truth can be used as evidence of intentionality and it can emphasize the “intent for agitation”. Misleading statements, for example grossly exaggerating, can be considered as Defamation.

National, racial, ethnic or other population group. The list is not conclusive, because it includes the term “other population group”. Requirement for intent. The characteristics of the crime are fulfilled even if the agitation pursued by the suspect is successful or not. If the suspect has considered it possible for the agitation to succeed or he/she has had an indifferent attitude towards the agitation.
- - - - - - - - - -
4. Arguments for preliminary investigation

Article states defaming statements of different groups as facts. Text states as a so-called fact that: “Africans think that robberies, rapes, nepotism, corruption, clan wars, superstition and murders committed on a spur on moment are normal way of things. If Africans form a majority group in some country outside Africa, this country is transformed into Africa.” Text also states racist and defamatory statements and racist thoughts in a textbook-style. Certain groups are also threatened.

Article provides wrongful statements as facts and conclusions are made using these wrongful statements. Textbook-style is emphasised by using pictures. Message of the article is that whites are more intelligent than blacks. For instance, it is stated, “a population consisting of 500 million white people is more intelligent than population consisting of 500 million whites plus 100 million blacks”.

Writer is trying to state his statements so that they would look like scientific facts. For instance, writer refers to causality. An example: “Bringing Negroes to Europe is bound to lower the average intelligence level because Negroes have a lower median-IQ than whites. There is a positive correlation between intelligence and the standard of living.” In the concluding phase, the article describes blacks as dangerous, because - according to the writer - they often commit crimes and they are being parasitic, because - also according to the writer - they are unemployed and are “being parasites living off with the money of the European taxpayers.” Conclusion according to the writer: “When more Negroes are brought to Europe, criminal activity shall rise”. Writer provides his solution to the problem in the last sentence: “if all those non-whites who currently live in Europe would move back to their originating countries, crime would be reduced by tens of percentages.”

Statements provided in the article are defamatory and they also defame certain groups. Statements are greatly exaggerating, whole groups are described as stupid, criminal - meaning dangerous - and parasitic. It is obvious, that writer wants to induce the reader with the same kind of loathing and contempt against a certain group that he himself feels (compare to Mika Illman: Hate against a human group, publication of a Finnish Bar Association, A-class N:o 262, s. 267-8).

Text compares certain ethnic groups to animals. According to Illman (page 269), statements like this belong to the core of penal code, chapter 11 8 § and without doubt fulfill the characteristics of a crime. This is a question about despising the humanity of certain groups and also about describing certain groups being of lesser value. Illman (page 269) has made a remark that e.g. describing refugees as parasites fulfills the characteristics of a crime described in penal code, chapter 11 8 §.

It is also necessary to take into consideration that text constantly introduces the word “Negro”. According to legal praxis, referring to individuals using this word is considered as an offence against personal reputation. Use of this word demonstrates that there is intent to defame and it also aggravates the statements made.

It is the viewpoint of the Ombudsman - while observing all issues as a whole- that disseminating this article clearly fulfills the characteristics described in penal code, chapter 11 8 §.

5. Receiving information about preliminary investigation

We thereby request to determinate the approximate length of the preliminary investigation. Also, when the time is due, we request for information about the results of the preliminary investigation.

Ombudsman for Minorities MikkPuumalainen
Senior inspector Yrsa Korkman

In the comments on Dymphna’s post from Wednesday night, the Finnish blogger Pikkupoika provides the job description for the Ombudsman for Minorities:

The Ombudsman for minorities is a government official, whose job description is given here:

“The Ombudsman for Minorities is an authority with the basic task of advancing the status and legal protection of ethnic minorities and foreigners as well as equality and non-discrimination and good ethnic relations in Finland.

The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman only covers the supervision of ethnic discrimination: it does not cover discrimination based merely on language, sexual orientation, ideology or disability. Preventing discrimination on these grounds still belongs to other authorities, mainly the highest supervisors of legality and, in working life, to occupational safety and health authorities.

The current Ombudsman for Minorities is Mr Mikko Puumalainen, LLLic. Administratively, the Office of the Ombudsman for Minorities works in connection with the Ministry of Labour, but the Ombudsman is an independent authority. The Office employs four senior officers and a secretary.

The task of the Ombudsman for Minorities is to:

  • promote good ethnic relations;
  • advance the status and legal protection of ethnic minorities and foreigners in society;
  • monitor the realisation of equality;
  • supervise compliance with the prohibition of ethnic discrimination;
  • provide information and reports.

The Ombudsman’s duties also include the tasks formerly assigned to the Ombudsman for Foreigners. A further task is the general safeguarding of the status and rights of foreigners.

The primary means used by the Ombudsman include recommendations, instructions and advice. The Ombudsman can also take initiatives related to the status of different ethnic groups or foreigners or social injustice. The Ombudsman enjoys an extensive right to access information.

Whenever necessary - although very exceptionally - the Ombudsman may also provide more extensive assistance to a person subjected to ethnic discrimination if the case is of great consequence. In most cases, however, legal assistance is only provided in the form of legal advice.

The new Non-Discrimination Act strengthens the Ombudsman’s mandate in addressing ethnic discrimination.

The Ombudsman for Minorities:

  • provides guidance and advice to those contacting the office on issues related to ethnicity and being a foreigner in Finland;
  • acts and encourages others to act on ethnic discrimination and the legal protection of foreigners;
  • promotes the status of ethnic minorities and foreigners and good ethnic relations;
  • provides information and training about ethnicity and the status of foreigners;
  • seeks to make attitudes towards ethnic minorities and immigrants more positive;
  • influences legislation and reports through statements and opinions;
  • influences topical issues through methods including comments and initiatives;
  • participates in public discussion through channels including granting interviews.

The Ombudsman’s task involves the principle of cooperation on multiple levels. Many aspects of equal treatment irrespective of a person’s origin are best achieved through cooperation between the various parties - not just the authorities.”

Yorkshire Miner, a frequent commenter here at Gates of Vienna, points out that the Finns are simply following the example (and before long, the mandates) of the European Union itself:

This will only get worse especially here in the Big Brother EU lands. Just over two weeks ago the Council of Europe issued a proposal for new laws to combat racism and xenophobia. If these proposals ever become law, it will be the end of a free Europe. These new laws will give the EU the right to decide what is racist or xenophobic. It gives the EU the right to instigate proceedings against any individual or organization, “Legal Person” being the proffered jargon. This can happen even if no complaint has been made. The punishments are also draconian, 1 to 3 years in prison; they have even some extra ones to dissuade you from doing the same again when you come out of prison and have paid your so-called debt to society. Read and weep:

Article 6
Sanctions for legal persons


1.  Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 5(1) is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, such as:
 (a) exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid;
 (b) temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities;
 (c) placing under judicial supervision;
 (d) a judicial winding-up order.
2.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 5(2) is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions or measures.

If you think you will be able to criticize by posting your comments on a server outside the EU, think again; they have even thought of a way around that. it is not only where the server is situated, it is where the offense is committed. It could also lead to the ridiculous situation where an American Blogger posted a not too complimentary comment on a Blog on a European server being arrested when he steps off the plane in Europe. Once again, read and weep:

Article 10
Jurisdiction


1.  Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction with regard to the conduct referred to in Articles 1 and 2 where the conduct has been committed:
 (a) in whole or in part within its territory; or
 (b) by one of its nationals; or
 (c) for the benefit of a legal person that has its head office in the territory of that Member State.
2.  When establishing jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 1(a), each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that its jurisdiction extends to cases where the conduct is committed through an information system and:
 (a) the offender commits the conduct when physically present in its territory, whether or not the conduct involves material hosted on an information system in its territory;
 (b) the conduct involves material hosted on an information system in its territory, whether or not the offender commits the conduct when physically present in its territory.
  […]
4.  A Member State may decide not to apply, or to apply only in specific cases or circumstances, the jurisdiction rule set out in paragraphs 1(b) and (c).

…So all bloggers be careful, and don’t call the EU from now on a wicked vicious organization run by baboons. You will most likely get off calling them wicked and vicious but they will certainly put you away for being racist and xenophobic towards baboons.


Earlier posts on this topic:

Muzzled in Finland
Finland Cracks Down
Mikko Ellilä Speaks Out
Word From Down Under

20 comments:

gun-totin-wacko said...

Boy, I don't know. It's a bit harder to work up sympathy for the guy now. He does seem pretty racist.

Of course, that being said, I have read articles that make the Race-IQ connection. Didn't a former medical examiner from Canada write a book about it a few years ago? I seem to recall that. He also got lynched in the media, of course, but I recall looking him up on Amazon, and the comments were either "he's got some valid evidence, and this needs to be discussed" or "he's an absolute racist so-and-so that needs to be censored". I don't know either way, but I never felt any idea needs to be covered up. Bring it out in the open, and let's see how it works, either way.

All that being said, the excerpts of the Blog that are quoted here are pretty extreme. But as many have said, it's this kind of speech that needs to be protected.

abuTrevor said...

What we have here are the accusations made against Mikko Ellilä. I'm hesitant to support someone who allegedly made such racist comments.

What need to see is (a translation of) the origional article “Society consists of People”. Is there any possibility of GoV being able to obtain a translation of this article and posting it for us to decide?

Ontario Emperor said...

This was a particularly interesting sentence: "Insults may contain truthful statements that have a purpose of offending."

What's the movie that includes the question "You can't handle the truth?"

livfreerdie said...

It would seem that Finland has cede their sovereingty and their rights for a central politboro which is nothing more that a NGO supported by finances of suspect origin whose sole purpose is to create a ue-ssr. Just like Soros and the ultra left are trying to do to the US. God bless the 2nd Amendment.

To quote "V for vedetta" " people should not be afraid of their goverments, governments should be afraid of their peoiple">

Tom

Mike said...

There's a good rule of thumb to keep in mind when discussing race/intelligence links and eugenics. The groups that are militantly against discussing the topic today are the very groups who championed it almost a century ago--liberals, socialist, feminists and the very rich (i.e. the Rockefellers).

That darling of English feminists, Marie Stopes, was big on forcing down the birthrate of allegedly inferior groups such as the Irish. The organization she founded has the revealing name of "Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress."

The pioneering feminist sociologist, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, described an all-female eugenic utopia in Herland. It was a place where Overmothers decided who could become mothers. The feminists I've read seem to be able to tolerate all that state controlled reproduction, but they quite unstandable get the fur up over her passing remark that the utopia was build on sound "Aryan" stock. That was a progress thing to say in the 1910s, but not so progressive today.

Ditto Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, although today's U.S. feminists seemed to be embarassed by the sorts of things she wrote in books such as her 1922 The Pivot of Civilization.

In contrast, the critics of eugenics tended to be reactionary and religious, particularly Catholic. The best example is the marvelous G. K. Chesterton, author of Eugenics and Other Evils, a book interesting enough it's still in print.

--Mike Perry, Seattle

7of3 said...

Well, it seems my irony/sarcasm detector is a bit off, so either the first two are being very subtle or, perhaps, are not trying to be ironic at all. But they should be.

Take for example the characterization of the following as 'defaming statement of different groups': "If Africans form a majority group in some country outside Africa, this country is transformed into Africa.” While it is true that the statement itself is a bit simplistic, consider the following: "If Europeans form a majority group in some country outside Europe, this country is transformed into Europe.” I have no problem with that and understand what message the writer was trying to convey and if roles would be so reversed I doubt Europeans would be offended. Strangely enough, the Ombudsman is obviously guilty of culture-centrism if not of racism herself (himself?) since in her opinion, a country turned to Africa is a bad thing and saying that a country could be turned to Africa is criminalized. Would it still be a defamatory statement if "a country would be turned to America"? This implies that the Ombudsman ranks Africa (as a social construct) lower than, for example Finland.

If we engage in cultural relativism, then things are … relative.

Other claims may be substantiated or refuted by resorting to analysis of news, history and statistics. The thing is that none should be barred from doing so and reporting the results, since only thing produced by suppression of research is bad research.

Mr. Spog said...

"1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 5(1) is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which ... may include other sanctions, such as:
(a) exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid;
(b) temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities..."

This has a whiff of "hard" Soviet-style totalitarianism as opposed to the familiar "soft" European variety. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't European public benefits guaranteed even to serial murderers, etc., after their release from prison? To deny someone welfare in a welfare state is to define him as a non-person, to say nothing of cutting off his employment opportunities as well.

"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against Equality and Tolerance will not be forgiven."

USpace said...

Good post, we must keep spreading the word. This fascist Finnish dictator-in-training must be continually exposed. I wonder how he would react if his daughter or wife was gang-raped by some Muslim Immigrants.

He is after this blogger for posting official Finnish Justice Ministry crime statistics about immigrant crime rates in Finland compared to Finlander crime rates in Finland.

He correctly points out that this mini-Hitler must then of course prosecute the Finnish Justice Ministry.

Imagine all the negative publicity hundreds of Fallaci-type trials would produce.

It’s a wonder that the neo-libs support an ideology that officially condones raping, stoning and enslaving women, as well as killing ALL homosexuals; sounds real ‘liberal’ to me. Good for you to keep sticking it to them by exposing the truth about these raping and women-beating, monkey-behaving subhumans...

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
keep trying to kill FREE speech

someday will be illegal
to accuse of terrorism


absurd thought -
God of the Universe hates
infidel bloggers

getting truth out makes him mad
keep the people in the dark
.

Aapo said...

Some Civil Courage and English Translation of the Controversial Article

Because the question is about freedom of speech and censoring of the Internet, I decided (like with the case of Muhammed Cartoons) to republish the controversial stuff along my comments about the subject matter under my personal home-pages at http://aapo.iki.fi/ellila

Also, because the matter has rised an international uproar and the original article is in Finnish, it would be unfair, if the non-Finnish-speaking people couldn't read it. So I publish my English translation of the article at http://aapo.iki.fi/ellila

lot said...

A correction to chapter 4: "Certain groups are also threatened" should be: "Certain groups are also defamed". Ellilä did not make any threats against anyone. Sorry about that error.

Vasarahammer said...

The issue here is not what Mikko Ellilä wrote in his blog. Finnish government with the help of overzealous Minority Ombudsman Mikko Puumalainen is trying to stifle debate in the internet by targeting individual bloggers with frivolous lawsuits.

This conclusion is no longer based on speculation. There are several published statements made by Ombudsman Puumalainen that support this view as well as statements made by Puumalainen in the newsmedia.

Mikko Ellilä was picked because he writes under his own name. He was the easiest target around.

Let me also make my opinion clear. I do not support the views expressed by Mikko in the blog article that Puumalainen refers to in his complaint. However, Mikko's opinions are not the real issue here.

And let me also make one thing clear. If Puumalainen wins this war, he will not stop at Mikko Ellilä.

Vasarahammer said...

Everybody is entitled to regard Mikko's article as racist, because that's how it looks based on a single article.

However, Mikko has also stated in a comment section of his blog the following:

http://mikkoellila.thinkertothinker.com/?p=121

"Despite the numerous times I have been called a racist, I am not. I see people as individuals. I think that every individual has the same rights regardless of race, nationality, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation."

Mikko's earlier posts are libertarian in nature. This means he's extreme individualist. However, the post he's accused of can be regarded as racist.

I don't know what the intent of that post was, but I think it was intended to provoke and present some sort of caricature. However, it was very bad taste and the opinions expressed and the words used were provocative.

For me, the issue here is not about Mikko Ellilä's postings but freedom of speech in general.

Aapo said...

From the point of freedom of speech, the best tactic in my opinion is to spread the actual controversial article as much as possible, so in the end the officials must understand, that they cannot censor the Internet.

Aapo said...

"Despite the numerous times I have been called a racist, I am not. I see people as individuals. I think that every individual has the same rights regardless of race, nationality, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation."

Now excuse me for being an illiterate multiculturefascist airhead, and questioning your golden boy's absolute sincerity, but I can't see how your quotation exactly fits into statements like this:

In USA and Canada the niggers behave somewhat bearably only when they are a clear minority. The surrounding white society, on one hand by its means of violence (the police, prisons, armed self-protection, KKK-style vigilantists), on the other by its sociocultural pressure, forces the niggers to adapt to the western culture.

Or such as this:

The niggers obey the rules imposed by the white society only when such are concretely maintained by hard discipline. If the discipline softens, the niggers' biologically African nature is manifested again in their behaviour.

Also a circus lion can obey the man, when it's kept under discipline by a whip. If the man stops maintaining the hard discipline, the lion starts to jump.

Biology is a destiny. Living creatures can't do anything about their biology. All the opposition to sociobiology, e.g. feminism, is based on attempts to deny the man's nature as a biological creature.


I await with bated breath you to tell me how the context and Mr Ellilä's earlier articles would make any difference.

Yours truly,
Aapo (not the same as above)

Aapo said...

Ah, didn't notice that my namesake had already translated the complete article. So no reason for myself to translate and share any random bits of it.

Baron Bodissey said...

Aapo #2,

I think you are unwarrantedly inflaming the situation here by translating the Finnish word "neekerit" as "niggers" and not "negroes" (as Aapo #1 does).

I doubt that the "neekerit" carries the same emotional and ideological impact as the word "nigger" does for Americans, given that Finland was until recently monocultural, and that blacks are still not numerous there.

Other Finns are invited to offer their opinions, and correct me if I'm wrong.

Aapo said...

Other Finns are invited to offer their opinions, and correct me if I'm wrong.

Absolutely. I also would love to see them reading the texts to a black audience, first using the word 'nigger' and then 'Negro', or vice versa, and filming the reactions. Forgive me my prejudical, possibly genetically programmed human nature, but I can't imagine it making a huge difference.

My dictionary says that 'neekeri' is indeed 'Negro' and that 'nigger' is 'nekru'. This being the year 2007, I admit my semantic ignorance and the fact that I have no goddammn clue of the distinctive nuances they may include - given the message of the article.

-Aapo #2

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

The correct translation is negro, not nigger.


vasarahammer:
Finnish government with the help of overzealous Minority Ombudsman Mikko Puumalainen is trying to stifle debate in the internet by targeting individual bloggers with frivolous lawsuits.

I am still under the impression that this was started by Puumalainen, and not by the government in general.

PapaBear said...

Asking the question “Is there a racial component to human intelligence?” became impossible. No professor could receive funding, publish his writings easily, or maintain his professional reputation if he attempted to venture into these stormy waters. The entire topic was simply shut down.

Witness the firestorm around "The Bell Curve"

I'll stick my neck out a bit here and say that the predominance of one group in the NBA and in Olympic running sports is a strong indicator that there are components of genetic history that influence things beyond mere appearance

Kami said...

What annoys me the most is the translation. As I see it, there's a cultural difference. "Neekeri" wasn't a negative word until the "americanized" way of looking at things arrived.

On the other hand, there are many words in Finnish language that can't be translated in English without losing a bit of the meaning. Come on. The language is so old, it has cave paintings on it.

So the question from my point of view is not if it's considered racist or criminal in the rest of the globe. The point is, Mr Puumalainen is on a mission. Even though I have nothing to fear from him, I dislike the idea of smothering someone's thoughts.

One blog has a nice quote in it.

"Ei ole mitään syytä tukahduttaa näkemystä ellei se ole totta, sillä virheellistä näkemystä vastaan voidaan käydä tosiasioiden ja logiikan avulla, kun taas totuutta vastaan voidaan käydä vain valheilla ja tukahduttamalla"

I'm not a very good of a translator, but roughly it goes:

"There's no reason to smother a view if it's not true, for errorous view can be put down with facts and logic, when the truth can be only be put down with lies and smothering."

Where are the facts? Where is the logic? All I see is an attempt to smother. So basicly, one could think that Puumalainen agrees with Ellilä and thinks he's right, but wants to put him down, because he's on a mission. I think his mission might not be the one that's good for Finland.

I'll let a Swedish guy call me a finnjävel any day. He has a right to his opinion. If he does it with his own face and in front of me when I'm drunk on a boat, he better have a good chin. ;)