Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Word From Down Under

Prodos is the Australian blogger who runs the Thinker to Thinker blog network. He has received an email from Mikko Ellilä explaining his situation, and expressing concern about possible pressure being brought to bear to delete his blog posts:

I am writing to you because I received a letter from the municipal police department saying they want to interrogate me because of the anti-Muslim, pro-Israeli, pro-European, pro-American posts in my blog.

According to the letter, I am suspected of “hate speech” merely because I have pointed out that Islam is a fascist ideology that advocates killing Jews, atheists, homosexuals etc.

I hope you will not submit under the yoke of censorship that the Muslims want to impose on us.

Do not delete any of my blog posts without an explicit order from an Australian court of law. I am assuming your server is based in Australia and is therefore under Australian jurisdiction. [Prodos notes that his server is actually in the United States. — BB]

I live in Espoo, a suburban municipality in the Helsinki metropolitan area in Finland, and I am certain that the municipal police will never take this case to court in Australia. But they might send you some e-mail “politely” asking you to delete my blog. Don’t do this if you value freedom.

This is a very important symbolic case, the first of its kind in Finland. No one has ever been interrogated before in this country for blog posts criticising Islam. Probably thousands of people will be following this case already before I will visit the police station for the interrogation next Monday, because I have told about the ongoing police investigation to several other bloggers whose pages get thousands of visitors per day.
- - - - - - - - - -
This is an extremely important case, a litmus test for the freedom of speech, a landmark case, a historical milestone.

The Finnish government is apparently trying to impose Chinese-style totalitarian censorship on the internet. Since the parliament would not approve of any new censorship laws, the government is trying to impose censorship ILLEGALLY by abusing existing laws against hate speech. Such laws were originally obviously meant to be used against Nazi-style “kill all Jews” rhetoric, but since the Muslims use that kind of rhetoric all the time, and THEY are not being interrogated by the police, whereas people who say things like “Islam is a totalitarian ideology” ARE interrogated, the hate speech laws are obviously being used AGAINST their original purpose.

Again, this is an extremely important issue. Do not give in.

Prodos’ response?

“I will tell them to F**K OFF.”

Earlier posts on this topic:

Muzzled in Finland
Finland Cracks Down
Mikko Ellilä Speaks Out


History Snark said...

I think Prodos has the right answer.

Baron Bodissey said...

JCS --

Cool your jets. We're not being hysterical.

1. If a "stupid law" is the issue, then that is worth raising a hue and cry about, while we can still raise a hue and cry. It's a manifestation of totalitarianism to have a law that suppresses political speech.

2. If the law is not the issue, then it is an outrage that the police are extrajudicially forcing a citizen to undergo a legal hearing because of the content of his writings. Once again, it's a manifestation of totalitarianism when the state exercises arbitrary power against a citizen.

Either alternative is an outrage against liberty, and should be protested.

Coming as it does on the eve of the debate over the "Hate Speech" bill here in the USA, the "hysteria" is timely indeed. The more noise we make, the less likely these situations are to recur.

OregonGuy said...

The issue at law here is one of prior restraint.

Prior restraint is a form of censorship. In this country, at least until the passage of McCain-Feingold, the government was required to show harm before stopping the publication or dissemination of speech. So, it's instructive that the kind of "chilling effect" derided by "JC Supercop" is exactly the kind of chilling effect referred to by Justice Brennan in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 1965.

Speech is a disinfectant. Restraint of speech harbors diseased thought. Finland is best off with more freedom, not less.

Hellpig said...

Not sure what you said but I support your fight against the followers of the child raping false prophet Muhammad,if they do interogate you use the Qu'ran as your defence this book is a hate filled how to guide to lie cheat steal rape murder and terrorise....good luck my finnish brother

Martin Lindeskog said...

I recommend you to listen to John Lewis's talk, "No Substitute for Victory": The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism.

Best Premises,

Martin Lindeskog - American in spirit.
Gothenburg, Sweden.

Jimmy Crackcorn said...

Send our best wishes. Tell him to keep fighting and never give up.

I like the title of your blog. I am somewhat of a historian and I know the history behind 1683 and Vienna. John Sobieski and the allies really saved Europe that day but in truth it had been happening continuously since on or before 700 A.D. Not many know about the continuous attempts of the Muslims to take over Europe, but we are constantly reminded of the Crusades.


John Sobieski said...

The political elite, with their pretentious political correctness, are determined to snuff out freedom of speech. Even in America they are working hard to shut up the bloggers.

Incognito said...

They jail bloggers in the Middle East for being critical of Islam, who's to say that, at some point in time, with all the pandering to the Islamic communities in Europe, that it won't eventually happen there.

Yorkshireminer said...

This will only get worse especially here in the Big Brother E.U. lands. Just over two weeks ago the Council of Europe issued a proposal for new laws to combat racism and xenophobia. If these proposal ever become law, it will be the end of a free Europe. These new laws will give the E.U. the right to decide what is racist or Xenophobic. It give the E.U. 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, 1-3 years in prison, they have even some extra ones to disuade you from doing the same again when you come out of prison and have paid you 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

If you think you will be able to criticize by posting your comments on a server outside the E.U. 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 Blogg on a European server being arrested when he steps off the plane in Europe. Once again read and weep

Article 10
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).

This is just the beginning of a concerted attack on our freedom to freely criticize, Nick Griffen of the B.N.P (British National Party) has had to undergo two trials before British courts, the second one because the Government didn't get the verdict it desired. These two trials have cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds, luckily 12 British Jurors had a bit more common sense than the, Government who wanted a show trial, dismissed the charges. Nick Giffen's crime by the way was to call Islam a
“WICKED, VICIOUS FAITH" at a private meeting secretly film by the unbiased BBC. The other ominous point that this police investigation brings to mind, is that you are now assumed to be guilty until I say you are innocent, instead of the other way round. So all bloggers be careful and don't call the E.U. 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. Don't think I am being funny an organization in Spain wants to give monkeys the same privileges as we so called Humans and the brain dead E.U. will most likely go along with it.

X said...

We're getting very close to that already. At some point the EU will manage to get its 'european arrest warrant' pushed through, which will make it possible to be arrested in, say, the UK for something that is only a crime in, for example., Greece. Or Finland. After that you would only need to start issuing arrest warrants from a country with strict 'hate crime' legislation against any european bloggers.

Anonymous said...

On related note, in 1.5.2007 the biggest newspaper in Finland, "Helsingin sanomat" criticized the police and authorities for insufficient zeal in prosecuting "racist crimes" in the editorial.

This was based on the alleged fact which was published in 26.4.2007:
"Racist crime rarely leads to conviction in Finland
-175 racist crimes in Helsinki, but only six convictions"


This in turn is based on a report compiled by the Police College of Finland which found out that out of 669 alleged or suspected racist crimes only 25 individuals were convicted in 17 separate cases based on racism articles. (=hate-crime laws)

So, 17 cases out of 669 were proved to be about racism in the court of law.
The number 669 is the amount of cases where racism was suspected at some point, so if for example the "Duke rape case" had happened in Finland the number would have been 670.

What these facts meant to the Politically Correct people is this: Racist crime rarely leads to conviction!

Obviously the crime done by immigrants is a bigger problem by order of magnitude: 25 racists convicted versus roughly 20 000 immigrants convicted per year for various crimes between 2001-2004.
This obviously means that the Finns need more sensitivity training and stricter control by the authorities, no news there.

But what actually worries me about their attitude is this:
According to the biggest newspaper in Finland, alleged racist crime is completely synonymous with "crime". They don't even mention the possibility that some charges were perhaps not true.
No, the conclusion is this:
A racist crime rarely leads to a conviction in Finland.

When the alleged crime is racism, according to "Helsingin Sanomat" you are:

1) Not innocent until proven guilty.

2) Not even guilty until proven innocent.

3) Guilty of racist crime no matter what the police and authorities find out.

Other thing worth noticing: unlike political correctness fanatics in USA, they did not hysterically accuse the legal system of "institutional racism". Instead, in the 1.5.2007 editorial the police and authorities were pretty much told to be more aggressive in the future.

Now I suppose they have their change to redeem themselves in the eyes of Finnish mainstream media with Mr. Ellila.

On more light hearted note, you can check out the quality of reporting in Helsingin Sanomat, affectionately known as "Pravda" among conservative Finns, in the
"previously in Helsingin Sanomat" section in the link I gave:

Immigrants get fines following Kajaani pizzeria brawl last year (22.11.2006)

"As for the young native-born Finns who had been involved in the incident, the court stated that no evidence of the alleged assault could be found."


City of Kajaani to root out racism and prevent further outrages (10.10.2005)

Kajaani Finland´s most racist city, statistics reveal (3.8.2005)

Hooligans storm pizzeria run by immigrants in Kajaani (2.8.2005)

So, ironically that was one story of some suspected racist crimes which happened in 2005.

Vasarahammer said...

Here is a very balanced account of what has happened in Mikko Ellila case. Blogger Laiva on täynnä takes on exception and writes in English. A picture of Minority Ombudsman is also featured in the article.

magnus said...

I think the article under investigation is not about islam, but it's a fookin joke! A retarded finnish guy who had read the encyclopedia of the 1930th?

Stupid to investigate this anyway!!! Free speech is absolutely essential in our society, and the blogger shall see this case as a threat and important.

magnus said...

...important to fight against the case and for free speech (I mean, of cource).