I previously reported on the saga of Mikko Ellilä. Here is the trial (in English) and now the state has spoken its verdict: guilty.
So it has happened: thoughtcrime is now officially a crime in Finland. Stating your opinion, moreover stating your opinions based of government statistics, is illegal. Finns may now only express a politically sanctioned range of opinions subject to supervision by official Gauleiters like Mikko Puumalainen. The fine is small but so what? The message is clear. Dissent will not be tolerated by the Finnish state. It should not matter a damn if you agree with what Mikko Ellilä says, it is outrageous that he is not being allowed to say what he thinks.
The thing I find so nauseating is these sanctimonious pathological control freaks act as those they are not repressive government thugs using force to prevent dissent. The freedom to only state popular opinions is no freedom at all because freedom of speech is the right to say what some other people do not want to hear. It is the right to express opinions that may offend because if you cannot do that, you do not have freedom of speech.
People like Finnish bureaucrat Mikko Puumalainen exist everywhere (see the Ezra Levant case in Canada) and they must be resisted by any means necessary.
There is a phrase in English which is understood globally. It’s a very simple and surprisingly effective one. It’s “Fuck Off!”
It worked for the Huscarls (backed with bloody enormous axes) and it works for me. One day that barbaric yawp will be sounded from the highest towers but alas in Finland it is not this day.
Reality doesn’t impinge much on governmental thinking does it?
It is an old story Perry.
“We are not against freedom – we are for freedom, the new freedom”.
“New freedom” or “liberation” or what ever.
I almost typed “social freedom” – accept Edmund Burke used that term to mean Common Law non agression principle freedom.
For indeed the conflict goes back that far – it is not just 1960’s Herbert Marcuse stuff.
The Jacabins claimed to be “for freedom”.
But anyone who said “long live the King” found that the “liberty” now meant “supporting the cause of the new society”.
“But that was an opinion not a fact”.
O.K.
“I am a republican, I support getting rid of the monarchy – but I must point out, as a matter of history, that both torture and the restrictions against Protestants and Jews were got rid of BEFORE 1789”.
Those words would have been enough for more that a “small fine” – they would have been enough for death.
Although, of course, Robespierre opposed the death penality for murder (indeed he has resigned from the old court system in protest against the death penality for murder) – death was only a fit punishment for having unprogressive political opinions OR for citing facts that might prove useful to unprpogressive people.
Hi,
I came by here a few months ago and didn’t return. I need to come visit more often. I appreciate the writing style and the quality of information. Thanks.
Nick is getting upset.
Let us imagine that I travel to Helsinki and find a six year old girl with “prospects”. I contract a marriage with her parents but because I’m the most perfect human ever I refrain three years and only deflower her when she’s nine (you all must agree that’s perfectly acceptable). I am BTW (for the purposes of this comment in my 50s) then…
I would land in a whole world of grief unless I followed Muhammed’s book.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran the female age of consent is 9. But it’s there culture isn’it?
As is removing a 2 year old girl’s clitoris with scissors as happened a few years back in Atlanta, GA.
If we can’t even call ’em on that freedom of speech means nothing.
It should be noted that Finland has signed and ratified all the European and international “human rights” treaties.
The fact that freedom of speech (even the freedom to state basic facts) is a crime in Finland shows that the modern interpretation of “human rights” does not defend liberty.
E.H. Carr, Harold Laski and the others who drafted the international declaration knew what they were about. They HATED liberty and made sure that there high sounding documents would be no defense of it.
Americans stand by the Bill of Rights and let no one “interpret” it for you. The words are simple enough for the ordinary person (and were meant to be so) – and the ordinary people must defend their liberty.
As for Britain – almost everyone here forget the British Bill of Rights (of 1689) long ago.
“….and it’s through that there Magna Carta
as was signed by King John of old,
that in England today
you can do what you like…
so long as you do what you’re told.”
Childhood memories of Stanley Holloway’s oh so apposite monologue.
I can only think of three things for which I like Finland-
1) Nokia phones aren’t bad at all.
2) The music of Sibelius is fantastic.
3) I once saw this great Finnish movie, with a truely beautiful nude blonde, and the movie was given the English title of ‘Reckless’.
Anyone know any others?
Having read the ‘trial’ material I am surprised by the reaction of the Court. Seems pretty mild content to me.
From where I stand it’s not just Finland that is in a straight-jacket of dumb political correctness but other Europian countries too – especially Sweden.
In comparison with the rantings of imams and mullahs, who seen to have carte blanche to say and write whatever they like without fear of sanctions of any kind, etc., 600 euros seems pretty steep for expressing one’s opinion.
On a wider note – whatever crazy policy is responsible for bringing Somalis to a country such as Finland.
Can anyone truly offer a more inappropirate country to resettle refugees? I think not.
As for Africa the unfortunate fact is that Africa is replete with dysfunctional exploitative undemocratic governments, widespread crime, massive unemployment, disease, and personal economic hardship among a large proportion of the people.
Think of Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chad, Nigeria etc., etc., . even South Africa.
Is it any wonder that Somalis coming from a virtual war zone, and the barriers reflected in climate, religion, language, culture, education, ethnicity, and general lifestyle, have major problems integrating into Finnish Society.
In my opinion the gap is too great and can only result in ongoing dislocation and social unrest.
I can’t help but think that Finland is in a state of denial and this condition can only worsen with the kind of censorship this case has disclosed.
Is this what Finland fought the Winter War for?
IS THE FINNISH VICE CHANCELOR OF JUSTICE FIGHTING A WAR ON CONSERVATIVES?
Those who visit this blog and read Swedish would do good to visit the linke below to an article by a Finnish investigative journalist regarding Mikko Puumalainen’s failure to bring sanctions against the University of Helsinki in a clearly blatent scandal. The problem is that during the years 2006 and 2007 the Finnish Chancelor of Justice reacted swiftly in almost identical (but much less blatent and serious) cases. The difference, you ask?
The victim or complainant is a known conservative and academic critic of multiculturalism!
See more here:
http://finlandsjannej.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/ledare-justitiekanslerns-agerande-gjorde-sockom-affaren-till-diplomatsak/