Swedish: The Gateway to Multicultural Finland

Finland is an officially bilingual country, with Swedish recognized by the state as equal to the Finnish language in education and public life. There are pockets of ethnic Swedes in Finland where Finnish is hardly spoken at all.

In recent years Finland’s leaders have looked to their multicultural western neighbor for inspiration, and have pushed for more immigrants to enrich Finland with the same kind of cultural diversity that has enjoyed such notable success in Sweden. Interestingly enough, the Swedish language is being proposed as a sort of multicultural gateway for new arrivals in Finland.

KGS has an in-depth report at Tundra Tabloids on the wonders of bilingual Finland:

The Finnish state broadcaster YLE2 this past Tuesday (30.11.2010) aired a live broadcast of a studio discussion group on “mandatory Swedish”, a topic that flares up now and then in the Finnish media. Swedish was made the 2nd official language of Finland and its status is recognized in the Finnish constitution. In the 70’s the learning of the Swedish language was made compulsory in schools, so the language of 5% of the Finnish population was forced upon the remaining 95%, and the angst over that decision has remained ever since.

The fact remains that there exist two distinct identities in Finland, predictably, based upon the languages of both groups. Such “identity” tension will always remain between the two groups because each side will always act, in what’s deemed to be, in their own self interests. It’s a highly logical, and as I said earlier, a predictable outcome.

Now add to that mix the thought of increased mass numbers of immigrants with a plethora of languages who will be demanding their own rights to use their own languages in Finnish society. But the Finnish-Swedish speakers have a plan, a few of their number (in the live broadcast) announced their party’s intention to grab as many foreigners as possible and steer them into speaking Swedish. They made a case for the Finnish government to get involved and make it possible for immigrants to choose which language to study and to identify themselves with.

First NIMBY, Now NWMK

There are a couple of interesting things to notice about this news item from the Netherlands. First of all, it demonstrates that the hard-left Greens and Socialists are not being given a free pass by Muslim fanatics, not at all. Femke Halsema, a Green politician, has withdrawn her children from a culturally enriched school after a pious Muslim in Rotterdam threatened her daughter.

The article doesn’t actually say that the alleged perp is a member of the Religion of Peace. However, given that his online nick was “allah-u-akbar”, it’s reasonable to assume it’s true.

The most telling aspect of this story may be found in the penultimate sentence. Here’s the article from NIS News:

Netherlands: Man Arrested After Threats to Halsema’s Daughter

ROTTERDAM, 04/12/10 — The police in Rotterdam have arrested a man on a charge of having threatened the daughter of leftwing Green (GroenLinks) party leader Femke Halsema.

The 35 year old man, as has now been made known, was arrested on Tuesday. He threatened Halsema in September via twitter.com, under the name of allah-u-akbar. He also threatened Labour (PvdA) leader Job Cohen and centre-left D66 leader Alexander Pechtold, the police said Friday.

The suspect appeared on Friday before the investigating judge, who decided to remand him in pre-trial custody for 14 days. A further investigation will be carried out into the suspect. When this is completed, the Public Prosecutor’s Office will decide how the case will be concluded.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 12/2/2010

The big news story of the day concerns the discovery of a new form of life — not extraterrestrial, but in a desert lake in California. A NASA scientist has discovered a new type of bacteria that uses arsenic instead of phosphorus in its cell chemistry, even as part of its DNA. There is no other known life form that resembles it.

In other news, Australian investigators have determined that the recent problem with Airbus jets is due to a design flaw in a particular Rolls Royce engine that caused it to catch fire and explode. Qantas has now retired all jets that use the engine.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, DF, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, JD, JP, KGS, Nick, Srdja Trifkovic, VH, Wally Ballou, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Shariah in Victoria

Opposing shariah (Islamic law) is more effective than campaigning against Islam, which is, after all, a religion, and therefore out-of-bounds under most Western constitutions. The move to ban shariah is what recent initiatives in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and other American states have been about.

The situation is different in Australia. The state of Victoria has already allowed the shariah camel’s nose under the tent by providing for the application of foreign law in its Charter of Human Rights. Many thanks to the Australian tipster who sent this op-ed from The Australian:

Charter opens door to Sharia law recognition

THE issue of Sharia law and human rights is rippling around the world.

In the US state of Oklahoma, voters recently approved a proposal that forbids state courts from considering or using international laws, as well as Sharia, or Islamic law.

A US federal judge has suspended the certification of that change to the law because it might breach the constitutional rights of individual Muslims.

In Victoria, the Charter of Human Rights actually permits the use of international laws and judgments in applying the charter.

Section 14 of that charter provides for freedom of religion. The issue then arises, does this mean that Muslims are entitled to have Shariah law applied to them in the Victorian courts?

Obviously, Islam is a religion. Less obvious, but more important is that, unlike Christianity, Islam is a complete religion governing every aspect of the believer’s life, including law.

Shariah law is actually an integral part of the Islamic religious belief and, under the charter, must be protected and applied. Section 32(2) of the charter throws more light on the issue.

That subsection states: “International law and the judgments of domestic, foreign and international courts and tribunals relevant to a human right may be considered in interpreting a statutory provision.”

It is important to understand that there are “courts and tribunals” applying Shariah law to the 1.6 billion Muslims in the Muslim world.

In addition to that, the Islamic world has its own Human Rights Covenants -- the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, 1990, which is intended to “serve as a general guidance for member states in the field of human rights”.

In the Cairo Declaration, it is made clear that all human rights derive from the Koran.

Trampling on the Flag

Anti-Semitism is rampant in most Western European countries. Contrary to popular myth, it is not a right-wing phenomenon, but a preoccupation of the Socialist Left aligned with radical Islam, and puts on a false mustache and sunglasses to disguise itself as “anti-Zionism”.

The news story below is about an anti-Israel demonstration in Amsterdam last winter. In it you’ll see a lone demonstrator unfurl an Israeli flag in the midst of a sea of Palestinian flags. Notice what happens to him as a result.

Our Flemish correspondent VH supplied this introduction to the video:

Israeli flag trampled — Ben Kok

The brave Jewish-Christian Pastor Ben Kok shows an Israeli flag during a demonstration by leftists and Muslims against Israel in Amsterdam on January 3, 2010. He is immediately intimidated by a Muslim then and quickly removed by the police in a van. In the turmoil he loses his flag. “The expressions there were anti-Semitic and one-sided,” Ben Kok said afterwards.

Many thanks to VH for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling. I’ve placed the video and a full transcript below the jump:

Cyber-Sexism and Cyber-Homophobia

A reader from New Zealand just sent us an email referring to last night’s post about laws against giving offense and hurting the religious feelings of Muslims (“Skinless people in a sandpaper world” — Zenster).

“Aucklander” decided to get involved by writing to the Australian authorities. Here’s his email to us:

Dear Dymphna and Baron,

I think you’re doing a great job and I check on Gates of Vienna most days. Perhaps soon that will be an actionable offence… Anyway, at the risk of offending someone, here is my view, and you’re welcome to print it if it’s of interest.

I think your idea re using these laws is right — hit them right back, show them just how stupid their laws are. For example, English law on not offending religious feelings: atheists should definitely start some complaints about offensive religious texts that discriminate against non-believers. We should not be put off even if we don’t approve of speech-restrictive laws in the first place. It’s about setting an example.

In the case of the Australian law, they could just be talking about racism, not opposition to religious ideology, so I thought I’d check. Here’s my letter to Human Rights Australia, sent via their complaints webpage. If you’re interested, I’ll send the answer, if I get one.

And his email to the human rights people:

Dear HR Australia,

I am interested in how you deal with cyber-sexism. Since you are actively against cyber-racism, why are you not also be dealing with cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia? As a feminist and supporter of homosexual friends I am deeply offended by many websites, including religious ideologies that downgrade women and threaten homosexuals.

While I am opposed to racism (in fact there is absolutely no scientific proof that different ‘races’ exist), there has been a tendency lately to claim that opposition to certain religious doctrines is ‘racist’. It is clearly not, as religion is a doctrine and not a genetic trait.

Please give me your definition of ‘race’ and of ‘racism’, and assure me that religious doctrines are absolutely not considered racial characteristics, so that if someone opposes a religious doctrine or practice online, they will not be committing ‘race crimes’ in your book.

Mistaken Identity

An Australian artist named Sergio Redegalli caused a lot of controversy when he painted a mural on the outside wall of his studio featuring the slogan “Say No To Burqas”.

Needless to say, Muslims were offended. And when Muslims get offended, official Australia jumps to their defense. Unfortunately for all the offendees, the mural was (and is) on private property, and was thus beyond the reach of the law.

Crikey! What to do?

The first step was to hold meetings, lots of meetings, in which feelings were aired and the diverse Down Under community engaged in dialogue. A young man donned a burqa and sat in the audience during one of those meetings, just to make a point.

You can hear him tell his story on an Australian talk radio program. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for YouTubing the audio with a photo of the burqa mural to illustrate it:



Hat tip: Darrin Hodges.

Light Posting

I was out for a good part of the day, and spent much of the rest doing things which have nothing whatsoever to do with this blog. When I returned to my keyboard, a surfeit of backlog awaited me. It’s taken four hours just to go through the emails.

In other words: like Silvio Berlusconi, I’m getting a little behind in my work. I’ll post a couple of videos this evening, but probably not much else.

Y’all may feel free to use this thread to argue peaceably amongst yourselves about whatever you like.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 12/1/2010

Two Muslim men in Afghanistan have been charged with converting to Christianity, and face a possible death penalty if they are convicted. They were videotaped being baptized at a ceremony in a private home, and someone leaked the tape to the authorities. Converting from Islam to any other religion is against sharia, which was installed in the Afghan Constitution when it was written by the United States.

In other news, Sweden’s discrimination Ombudsman has ruled that banning a student from class for wearing a niqab violates her rights.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Barry Rubin, C. Cantoni, CSP, DF, Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, JP, KGS, Kitman, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Who’s Offended?

Last night we discussed the case of an EDL member who was convicted and fined for saying things about Allah that might have offended a Muslim, if any had heard him. Earlier today we referred to the Australian government’s provisions for fighting “cyber racism”, in which anyone who feels offended by a “racist” website is encouraged to file an official complaint so that action can be taken against the offensive site.

As regular readers know, these laws against “hate speech” and “incitement to religious hatred” are almost universally used against people like us, who are labeled “racists”, “xenophobes”, and “Islamophobes” because we hold certain political opinions.

The recent EDL case is simply the most blatant example of what is happening to us. It’s becoming more and more apparent that causing a Muslim to feel offended — or even making a police officer think that a Muslim might possibly be offended — is enough to get a person arrested, convicted, fined, and possibly jailed.

But why do Muslims have a monopoly on being offended? Why don’t any other groups of people invoke their right never to feel offended, and file the appropriate complaints?

Part of the answer lies in the fact that Islam is considered a religion, and religions enjoy special privileges under most constitutions. Offending a Muslim means violating his right to free religious expression, and that is the basis for a lot of these pernicious laws. They work to the advantage of Muslims, because most Europeans (and many Americans and Australians as well) have fallen away from Christianity, and would be unable to file a credible religiously based counter-claim when Muslims chant “Death to infidels!”

Or they haven’t been able to make such claims up until now. But why shouldn’t they at least give it a try?

Atheism is, after all, a religion, despite what many of its adherents maintain. It has a creed and an orthodoxy. Its followers recite litanies and revere certain saints. They tend to impose severe punishments on those who deviate from atheist dogma. And, like devout Catholics or Salafist Muslims, they are absolutely certain about who made the world (no one) and what guides it now (nothing except the laws of physics).

So atheists, too, should have the right not to have their religious feelings offended. Their sensibilities should enjoy the same protections as those of any other believer.

Now consider what an atheist, especially a feminist atheist, would think of this:

This Experiment Can Only Be Performed Once!

Our German correspondent Markus recently wrote an email to Daniel Pipes in reference to an open question they discussed when the latter was in Berlin a couple of weeks ago. With Markus’ permission, I am posting the text of his email below:

Problem Islam — or problem Islamism? Do we have the right to risk a one-time experiment?

I wish people were right who state that it is only necessary to worry about Islamism, and not about large Muslim populations in Western societies — but I doubt it.

Now, even if large Islamic portions of society could be seen as unproblematic, there has to be some strategy to avoid relevant tendencies towards radicalisation.

The complexity of the question thus evolves around the following points:

• What strategies are proposed to inhibit/contain radical tendencies that tend to flourish in large Muslim populations?
  
• Has this strategy ever sustainably worked in real life (see e.g. Lebanon, the rapidly re-Islamizing Turkey, or the incredible events in England around Remembrance Day)?
  
• Is such a strategy unnecessary? If so, why?
  
• What if this strategy (or the lack thereof) goes wrong? This question, and the topic as a whole, is crucial. It is basically the (intellectual) question of war and peace in our times, whatever form those may take.

I may clarify that I am fully aware that:

a)		Islam as an ideology is the problem, not people of Islamic faith. Muslims themselves were, in the great majority, born into their religion and thus had no choice. Moreover, leaving Islam often leads to harsh consequences, from being socially excluded, through death threats, right up to murder. It is thus not their individual fault. Even more so since the supply of independent information about “infidel culture” and liberal democracy is not easy to spread inside Islamic communities.
b)		The Cold War, for instance, although a massive confrontation, was fought and ended (relatively) peacefully. Nevertheless, in such a confrontation clear and decisive measures, including deterrence, would have to be taken and enforced in order to contain and roll back a totalitarian Islam.

My worries are based on the following assumptions:

One-Way Street Tolerance

Below is an excellent rant delivered in Parliament by the Austrian MP Ewald Stadler. His remarks are directed at the Turkish Ambassador, who, as you may recall, recently insulted Austria for its purported mistreatment of its Turkish minority.

Many thanks to Politically Incorrect for the original footage, and to Kitman for translating and subtitling it:

Are You a Cyber Racist?

Last night Vlad and I posted our joint venture about Mohammed and his imaginary friend. Little did we realize that by doing so, we may have violated the law in Australia. Anyone from Down Under who accessed our posts and was offended by what we said is entitled to make a complaint to the Australian Communication and Media Authority, a service of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

ACMA maintains a webpage about “cyber racism” that advises offended people — the photo at the top of the page shows a Muslima, presumably the most likely person to take offense — about what recourse is available to them when they are insulted by a website.

The provisions of the law are fascinating, and frightening. Note: the original text really does skip from item #6 to item #8. Whatever item #7 was, it has been removed:

Cyber Racism

Updated 2008

1.		What is cyber racism? Cyber racism is a term used for racism on the internet. It includes racist websites, images, blogs, videos and comments on web forums.
2.		Does the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) apply to racist websites? Yes, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (‘the RDA’) does apply to racist websites. The RDA has a section on racial hatred (section 18C) that says that any public act that is reasonably likely, in all circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people on the basis of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin, is unlawful unless it is done reasonably and in good faith in certain specific circumstances. Because the RDA only applies to public acts, websites that are private and not easily accessible (for example, those that are password protected) are unlikely to be covered. Therefore, if you are offended or insulted because of your race by a website, or material on a website, which you have viewed in Australia, you may complain to the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission). A good example of a case on racist websites is Jones v. Toben.1 There, the Federal Court of Australia found that the website of the ‘Adelaide Institute’ breached the provisions of the RDA. Mr. Toben, the director of the Adelaide Institute, was ordered to remove from the website of his institute comments which denied the Holocaust and were offensive to Jewish people.
3.		What if the website is made or hosted by an overseas company or entity? It does not matter if the website is hosted or created overseas. If you are able to access the website in Australia and it offends you on the basis of your race, you can lodge a complaint of racial hatred under the RDA with the Commission.
4.		Who is responsible? It is sometimes difficult to identify the people responsible for putting racist material onto websites. People who create websites or post messages may do so under a different name than their own and it can be difficult to track them down. To make a complaint under the RDA, you need to be able to identify the person or provide information that would enable the person to be identified (or, in some cases, the company a person works for) whose acts you are complaining about. There are several different parties that could be involved in an incident of cyber racism: the internet service provider, the content host, the creator of the website, or the person who has posted a comment, video or blog on a website. Depending upon the level of involvement in the incident and what outcome you want to achieve, you might seek to make a number of different parties responsible.
5.		Is it a criminal offence to have a racist website?

Pat Condell on Sweden

Pat Condell holds forth on the new, improved, multicultural Sweden, the rape capital of Europe and staunch enemy of Islamophobia: