Mikko Ellilä has been ordered to "burn" his politically incorrect blog post
(I'm writing this in English just so that occasional international visitors can find out what's going on. The subject is important.)
Despite what some NGOs say, freedom of speech is not doing well in Finland.
Yesterday a Finnish blogger, Mikko Ellilä, was convicted of what could be called, despite all the political and legal jargon, a thoughtcrime. What he did was tell several hardly disputable facts: that, on average, white people have a higher IQ than Africans (this difference may be due to nutrition, education and/or genetics but that's beside the point), that crime rates are exceptionally high for Africans (or their offshoots such as African-Americans) and that immigrants consume more of society's resources than what they contribute, i.e., that immigration is a net loss, at least in a welfare state such as ours.
Not only are these claims true (the prosecutor was not able to prove otherwise), proven as such by statistics and decades-long studies but they're also important and relevant to political discussion concerning the effects of immigration. But facts don't count - this case was from the beginning a political witch hunt orcehstrated in part by such men as Mika Illman (the prosecutor) and Mikko Puumalainen (former Minority Ombudsman).
(I have to admit that I was not at all surprised by the verdict. I have lost my faith in the Finnish justice system a long time ago. This country rewards heinous criminals by placing them in prisons that can hardly be distinguished from hotels and lets pedophiles run free. Here the law hardly ever recognizes self-defense as legitimate.)
The crime was that these facts may have insulted some people and that it was, according to the court, Ellilä's intention to insult. This, of course, is fucking ridiculous. Apparently, facts that may insult some people have been banned from now on. Following this logic, Galileo was rightfully punished for insulting a group of people (i.e., Christians) by telling them that the Earth orbits the Sun. Besides, not many years ago Ellilä was all for open immigration (but against welfare state handouts). What changed his mind was not some boiled up anger or some irrational need to insult but that it became clear that immigration (of African and Middle-Eastern Muslims) had become a major threat to Western values. The court's verdict proves that it has.
(Note that I don't agree with Mikko Ellilä in supporting collectivist/racialist policies such as mass deportation of immigrants, including law-abiding ones.)
Links:
-The trial (in English - here's the Finnish version)
-The verdict
-Puolueettoman median uutisoinnista
Despite what some NGOs say, freedom of speech is not doing well in Finland.
Yesterday a Finnish blogger, Mikko Ellilä, was convicted of what could be called, despite all the political and legal jargon, a thoughtcrime. What he did was tell several hardly disputable facts: that, on average, white people have a higher IQ than Africans (this difference may be due to nutrition, education and/or genetics but that's beside the point), that crime rates are exceptionally high for Africans (or their offshoots such as African-Americans) and that immigrants consume more of society's resources than what they contribute, i.e., that immigration is a net loss, at least in a welfare state such as ours.
Not only are these claims true (the prosecutor was not able to prove otherwise), proven as such by statistics and decades-long studies but they're also important and relevant to political discussion concerning the effects of immigration. But facts don't count - this case was from the beginning a political witch hunt orcehstrated in part by such men as Mika Illman (the prosecutor) and Mikko Puumalainen (former Minority Ombudsman).
(I have to admit that I was not at all surprised by the verdict. I have lost my faith in the Finnish justice system a long time ago. This country rewards heinous criminals by placing them in prisons that can hardly be distinguished from hotels and lets pedophiles run free. Here the law hardly ever recognizes self-defense as legitimate.)
The crime was that these facts may have insulted some people and that it was, according to the court, Ellilä's intention to insult. This, of course, is fucking ridiculous. Apparently, facts that may insult some people have been banned from now on. Following this logic, Galileo was rightfully punished for insulting a group of people (i.e., Christians) by telling them that the Earth orbits the Sun. Besides, not many years ago Ellilä was all for open immigration (but against welfare state handouts). What changed his mind was not some boiled up anger or some irrational need to insult but that it became clear that immigration (of African and Middle-Eastern Muslims) had become a major threat to Western values. The court's verdict proves that it has.
(Note that I don't agree with Mikko Ellilä in supporting collectivist/racialist policies such as mass deportation of immigrants, including law-abiding ones.)
Links:
-The trial (in English - here's the Finnish version)
-The verdict
-Puolueettoman median uutisoinnista
Labels: culture, english, finland, freedom of speech, welfare state
posted by MSandt at 10:02 PM
7 Comments:
This is sick. Finland is becoming more and more of a communist state. I have argued many times with Ellila on different net forums/blogs (fft,ff) and wholly disagree with him on just about everything, but he has the right to his point of view. Shame on Finland.
This is disgusting. Finland is showing itself to be little better than a third rate banana republic.
Note that I don't agree with Mikko Ellilä in supporting collectivist/racialist policies such as mass deportation of immigrants, including law-abiding ones.
How else would you prevent the islamisation of Europe? Stopping immigration is not enough. Not anymore. If we kick out only the jihadists, Europe will be islamized. Besides, do you really think that the future muslim majority will accept the deportations of fellow muslims, even if they are jihadists?
Cultural change and the step-by-step enforcing of sharia are more important than terrorism. Preventing them requires mass deportations of law-abiding muslims.
Islamisation of Europe can be prevented by getting rid of the welfare state model that allows immigrants to exploit the system without contributing. This includes cutting down labor market regulations and abolishing minimum wage laws. Downgrading the welfare model is necessary in the long run anyway so why not start now?
Also, the potential "islamisation of Europe" scenario is based on the assumption that the current immigration trend will continue for decades to come but it's likely that it won't. The current globalisation wave will soon turn from Asia to Africa, improving standards of living there which may very well lead to millions of Muslims moving back to their homelands.
And then there's the question of principle. The idea that we should support collectivist policies such as handing over innocent people to brutal regimes just because of their skin color is a product of a twisted left-wing mind.
I'd much rather see Europeans enforcing the rule of law. This means that deportation of criminals should be enforced. Parents who circumcise their children should be deported as well and their children should be taken in custody. Imams should not be allowed to incite hatred with the help of taxpayers' money (this is being done at least in Sweden) and so on.
Hi there,
I am a writer of Wall of Speech, a blog where anyone can write what they want. This post caught my attention and I already commented it.
I would like to invite you to be a member of this blog. I think we have diferent opinions which would be great to create value to blog. If you want you can cross post (post here and in the wall of speech).
Sorry to bother and congratulations to your blog and you.
Free speech sometimes offends. That is often unavoidable, if for instance you criticise or refute someone else’s strongly held beliefs.
Unless you go to abusive extremes this is more the offended parties problem than that of the person making the comments. They become offended largely because of what and how they think and often due to stupidity or faulty logic.
If someone says something that you believe is wrong it should be easy enough to refute them. If you can’t refute them it suggests they may be correct in what they say.
To prosecute rather than refute in this case smacks of hysterical despotic suppression of free speech. The state saying “Shut up, just because I said so and for no other reason”
Also, the potential "islamisation of Europe" scenario is based on the assumption that the current immigration trend will continue for decades to come but it's likely that it won't.
Muslims have higher birthrates (which are not declining rapidly enough) so Europe would be islamized even if we stopped immigration today. But the fact is that immigration will not stop in the next few decades. By then there will be even more muslims breeding.
The current globalisation wave will soon turn from Asia to Africa
How soon? Africa's prospects are grim.
improving standards of living there which may very well lead to millions of Muslims moving back to their homelands.
How do you know that? By then their homelands and roots will be in the islamized areas of Europe. Thousands of mosques etc. Europe's living standards will still be pretty good compared to the Middle East and Africa.
And then there's the question of principle.
So you accept the islamisation of Europe and the everlasting collectivism that comes with it because you are not willing to accept the small amount of temporary collectivism needed to deport a few people. That is your anti-collectivist principle?
Post a Comment
<< Home