It is apparently illegal in Eurabia to speak the truth about the fact that Muslims who wage war in the name of Islam, and oppress women and non-Muslims in the name of Islam, have copious Islamic texts to which they can and do refer to justify their actions -- even though this would be the first step to any authentic Islamic reform.
By Lynn Davidson at Newsbusters, with thanks to all who sent this in (news links in the original):
Over the past few days, Gates of Vienna discussed a very troubling story about Finnish blogger Mikko Ellila, “who has been summoned by the police for a hearing next week, all because of the content of his blog posts.” Mikko posts in Finnish but contacted several people in English about this, such as the Australian blogger Prodos, who owns the site that hosts the potentially criminal blog. Mikko explained to Prodos why he is going to be questioned by Finnish police: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.Fellow Finnish blogger Vasarahammer explained more about Mikko's problem:
Finnish penal code contains a law that criminalizes incitement against a group of people. Here’s an inadequate translation of that law (Criminal code section 11 paragraph 8) (sic)Whoever publicly distributes statements or other information that threatens or abuses some national, racial, ethnic or religious group or group of people that can be regarded as such, shall be sentenced for incitement against a group of people to pay a fine or imprisoned with maximum penalty of two years.
Read it all.
It is illegal to criticize Islam in this manner in most western nations, including Canada. Free speech as you have it in the States, does not exist in these nations, we have no First Amendment because we have no such constitution. What George Orwell prophesied, is coming true.
"Whoever publicly distributes statements or other information that threatens or abuses some national, racial, ethnic or religious group or group of people that can be regarded as such, shall be sentenced for incitement against a group of people".
Therefore anyone involved in publishing the Quoran should be arrested under this law.
The truth is the Muslims do not want the truth to get to the ears of the Non Muslims....
Let’s look on the bright side. This might make a wonderful test case to lay clear the contradiction between free speech, the bedrock of democracy, and these sinister laws apparently outlawing the speaking of the truth about religions. It just has to be clarifed that racism is a world apart from criticising someone’s religion. A person cannot choose his race but can choose his religion, just as he can choose his politics.
As I've said on Gates of Vienna, at this point the police is only investigating if a crime has occured, because they were requested to do so.
I believe the real purpose of the law is to prosecute people who threaten ethnic or religious groups or incite violence againts them. If it was a crime to be critical of Islam or multiculturalism, Jussi Halla-Aho would have been fined or imprisoned long before he ran for parliament.
Granted, the law has the potential to be abused, but so far people have acted as if it's already been abused.
You can, if you follow links at the Gates of Vienna site, get email addresses and phone numbers of Finland's diplomatic corp here in the US to write them a letter of disapproval.
But now that I think about it, the Ombudsman for Minorities (Mikko Puumalainen) is wasting the police's time and resources by sending them on this fool's errand, when they could be investigating real crimes. That's annoying.
Mikko Ellilä's blog has more details.
I want to see this used against Muslim anti-semites.
Incitement? Why isn't the Finnish police, or any of the European police for that matter, investigating the thousands of mosques that preach hatred and murder to all infidels - kuffar - including specifically Jews, women and gays?
We need a dedicated virtual space to monitor this kind of threat to free speech.
Therefore anyone involved in publishing the Quoran should be arrested under this law.
I share this view. The blogger will educate the police on that.
Liberalism at it's "best"...
While claiming to be about free speech and the open debate of opposing ideas, it shows itself to be the exact opposite.
Reasons to dispute in court:
During US Republican presidential debate, many candidates indicated we are in a war with Islamic fundamentalism, not just a war on terror. Their statements are reported in the Finnish press and debated there. The MSM in Finland is not being charged for covering this debate. Nor are the candidates being charged for their speech being printed in Finland.
Republican GOP Presidential Debates Go Tom Tancredo
Virgil Goode a US Congressman said similar things. This is part of debate in a country that was a target in the war on terror.
Saudi Arabia and other countries have paid suicide bomber families for attacks. Under Islamic law, suicide is forbidden. These payments, under Islamic law, can only be paid for the killing of Christians or Jews, not for the suicide of the attacker.
Nick Griffin, leader of a political party in the UK was charged with speech crimes and acquitted. Then he was charged again, and again acquitted.
The US House of Rep, has asked that the DoD not use the phrase war on terror or long war. They want a specific name of a specific enemy. The logical name is the war waged by Islam against the West and the Rest. Other names have been suggested. However, its an open question on what to call the war. Therefore, the Finnish blogger had standing to supply a name for the US DoD to use to the US House of Representatives, since the US House has requested a new name for the war.
The Quran has been used to justify genocide and ethnic cleansing. Thus to deny its use in that way is a form of genocide and ethnic cleansing denial. That is a violation of the human rights of those killed or forced off. Ethnic and religious cleansing is going on in Muslim lands today.
Attacks by young immigrant males of a group against non-members can be debated as to whether its ethnic or religious cleansing. Finland would have to state that never in history had young immigrant males ethnically cleansed any person in any land in any age to deny this as a legitimate topic of debate. That would be ethnic cleansing and genocide denial. If there has been ethnic cleansing, then its been done by someone for some reason.
It can't be illegal to deny genocide and at the same time legal and mandatory to deny what motivated those who did it, or which incidents in history or currently qualify as ethnic cleansing. The European courts have recognized that cleansing did happen in the Balkans in the last 20 years. Therefore they have recognized in law that ethnic and religious cleansing is happening recently in Europe.
Turkey: Christian Armenian Genocide Sources
Official acts of Islamic Republics and Kingdoms thrust Islam into the political debate. Argument follows.
Saddam had Iraq as a country pay suicide bomber families.
Saudi Arabia acts in the name of Islam.
Its denial of due process of law to take a person's life without letting them complain. Muslims in Sweden have made statements about Islam to justify rape.
Islam as a historical fact attacked countries, subdued them and subjugated the people.
Its genocide, ethnic cleansing, and religious cleansing denial to deny that Islam has done this and that its classic commentators upheld it. That itself is part of the evidence of the cleansings,
and thus to suppress it is to suppress the historic record of genocide and cleansings.
Jill Carroll, a US national was held hostage in the name of Islam.
Denial of speech on that is anti-Americanism.
It is an official record of the United States that the Caliphate, acting through Tripoli, declared that Islam required war on the United States, a NATO member, and that is was based on the Quran. That was made to Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Dependence and the Virginia protection of religious freedom.
Thomas Jefferson Adams Koran 1786 Adja at LOC
The Finnish law is derived from those documents in part. They would put the very man who wrote them in prison for reporting what he was told by an Ambassador of the Caliphate and Sultanate, the official embodiment of Islam as a unitary political and religious entity.
Which brings up the last point, Islam is a unitary political and religious entity. Islamic members of the UN have Islamic Republic or Islamic Kingdom as part of their official legal name in the UN.
These countries have also blocked human rights actions as official acts and have also supported the statement that Zionism is Racism as an official act. Because these countries say that they are Islamic Republics and Islamic Kingdoms, they legally say that all their acts as states are acts by Islam, in the name of Islam, and are the expression of Islam. That includes all wars, killings, terrorist funding, etc.
By admitting these states as members of the UN with official title of Islamic Republic of Iran, or Islamic Kingdom, etc. the UN has recognized in international law that these states declare that their acts as states are acts of Islam the religion. These states have thrust Islam into the public debate by naming themselves Islamic Republics and Kingdoms. They have thrust Islam into debate as responsible for their acts as states by declaring themselves Islamic Republics and Islamic Kingdoms in their official name.
The UN has accepted that by registering their official name at the UN as Islamic Republic this or Islamic Kingdom that. The resolutions and the voting against Israel are thus official acts of Islam according to these states.
They have thrust Islam into the arena of public debate by their own naming choices and acts under that choice. Nor do they declare separation of religion and state, nor deny that they act in the name of Islam. They state that Islam is a source of their law. They do not state that their votes at the UN are in violation of Islamic law.
How come no one uses their laws against the muslims by showing what their texts state? They are the ones who are intolerant and hateful. These laws are only silencing the ones who are stating what islam preaches.
What kind of crock is this? I think I know what is happening - fear of death due to death threats for themselves and/or their families coming from the muslims themselves. They are great for bullying and if the bullying doesn't silence the infidels then sending out their sociopathic murderers to do the ill deeds. This is why muslim on non-muslim crimes are increasing in Europe - no one is facing them, no one is learning from the others who have faced the same thing and now find themselves dhimmi in their own lands, if they are still alive.
I am embarressed to say that I have a European background. I am proud my ancesters left Europe, but we are facing a left wing here in America and we face the same muslim bullying techinques too. I don't know if saudi arabia has their paws in Europe - they do in the Vatican - and it probably wouldn't take much to find out. And this influence has made dhimmi out of our politicians.
In addition to the good points raised by others, let me add to the arguments under international law for the rights of this blogger.
The UN by registering the names of states as Islamic Republic or Islamic Kingdom, have recognized under international law, that these states have thrust Islam the religion into public discourse as a political entity. By making wars in the name of Islam while UN members, and all their acts are in the name of Islam, because their country name is, these states have thrust war in the name of Islam into international public debate.
By continuing the same registered name for these countries after they fight wars in the name of their country, which every country does, the UN has recognized by this act that Islam is thrust into the debate of politics. This is an act of the UN that is binding on Finland as a UN member. It is binding under treaties and resolutions on human rights that Finland has signed with the UN or other entities recognized by the UN in one form or another.
The Finnish government has never objected to the registration of the names of Islamic Republics and Kingdoms at the UN. By not doing so, it has consented by silence to their use. By doing so, the Finnish government has consented to the thrusting of Islam into the public debate as a political entity by these countries and the UN.
Old Atlantic - thanks for your post. You basically have stated that by their putting islam on their countries' names they have admitted islam into the political arena and therefore ARE INDEED up to criticizm and further research.
Now, maybe some politician will read these boards. Any politician. please. Someone.
And I have sent in various jihadwatch/dhimmiwatch web articles to my politicians over the past year, but I doubt if they read them. Maybe their clerks do, but I doubt if the ones making the decisions read them. I even doubt if their clerks read them. I hope one will prove me wrong. please.
Turkey reserved the name Caliphate and the name Sultanate for itself when it became a Republic in the 1920's. Prior to that, the Ottoman Empire fought wars in the name of Islam against various countries including Russia. This includes at times when Finland was part of Russia. Thus The Caliphate and Sultanate waged war on Finland in the name of Islam.
Finland Wiki
Finland was part of Russia during WWI when the Caliphate and Sultanate waged war as an official war of Islam against it. The Sultans have numerous recorded statements of waging war in the name of Islam. See the writings of Andrew Bostom for example at Front Page Magazine.
By retaining legal control of the names Caliphate and Sultanate, Turkey thrusts these names and Islam into the public debate. Finland has never objected to Turkey retaining legal control of the name Caliphate. Turkey's entrance into the EU while it retains legal control of the name Caliphate, in which name it claimed to wage war for Islam against Finland in WWI, is therefore thrust into the public debate by Turkey as an official act.
The last time Turkey used that name, it waged war on Finland. Thus Turkey's legal retention of the rights to the name Caliphate thrusts into the public debate Islam and the acts that the Caliphate did, claiming supreme authority under Islam.
R_not, thanks. We have to make a record as you have tried to. As legal history shows, the losing side sometimes wins later based on the good arguments developed in the first round.
PC can turn on its head, and the truth can set us free.
quote
“[More from the Ottoman Sultan’s pronouncement to his subjects]...‘all infidels are but one nation…This war must be considered purely a religious and national war. Let all the faithful, rich or poor, great or little, know, that to fight is a duty with us; let them then refrain from thinking of arrears, or of pay of any kind; far from such considerations, let us sacrifice our property and our persons; let us execute zealously the duties which the honor of Islamism imposes on us – let us unite our efforts, and labor, body and soul, for the support of religion, until the day of judgement. Mussulmen have no other means of working out salvation in this world and the next.’”
end quote
Turkey retained control of the names Caliphate and Sultanate by act of its parliament in the 1920's. They retained control of those names while this statement of their Sultan and Caliph was on record. Similar statements are on record. By retaining control of the name Caliphate and the name Sultanate, while such official statements of the Caliphate and Sultanate were on record, and applying for EU membership, Turkey has by its official acts thrust Islam, the Caliphate and the Sultanate into current affairs and debate. This includes every act done under the name of Islam or the Caliphate or the Sultanate in history.
"It is illegal to criticize Islam in this manner in most western nations, including Canada. Free speech as you have it in the States, does not exist in these nations, we have no First Amendment because we have no such constitution. What George Orwell prophesied, is coming true."
Jihadwatcher: this is not like that in Canada. The Bill of Rights and Freedoms guarantees "b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"
The problem we have is with "c) freedom of peaceful assembly;" ... indoctrination in the Mosques may take place peacefully, eh?
But in any case, it seems freedom of speech is under constant threat ... what about freedom of thought?
It's always those who criticize Islam (and never Islam, which criticizes every infidel dog) who are bothered by these "thoughtcrime" laws.
Isn't that "selective prosecution"?
The Koran needs to be taken into the court by this Finn and exposed for its texts (speech) "threatening" and "abusing" the rest of the world.
Every harassment case like this needs to be turned back upon the accusers, and upon the laws.
The p.c. fools who honed these statutes thought they were a one-edged sword (to silence those who would expose their "protected minority": Muslims and Muslim thought, to analysis and criticism and mockery and debate)...time to show them the other edge.
You gotta fight
for your right
to Paaaaaaaarty.
Biergartens, wine, al-cohol in all forms including isopropol (non-drinkable medicinal)[I'm not making this up - have seen calls for it.]
will be banned by the Calipha.
Think about that.
Demand freedom.
If the intent of such assinine laws was to protect the oppressed we would notice.
Thought Crime Laws
BTW: CAIR is supporting the efforts to get such laws passed here as well. On their website:
HATE HURTS AMERICA (US HOUSE): Support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
===========
In fact these laws end up being differentially enforced -- which is easy since they are NOT OBJECTIVE, so who is to say what is a correct or incorrect application?
If there was at least an intent to protect the targets of incitement to violence, Finland would have agents in every mosque and mohammedan bookstore, and a steady stream of kill-the-infidel promoters heading out to exile or off to jail.
But apparently the law is not intended to protect the fabled sons of apes and dogs.
===========
Non-objective law is whatever you want it to be (as long as you're holding the gun).
So, by non-objective standards, calls to kill the infidels are protected religious speech.
But noticing that a plurality of mohammedan preachers are calling for the murder of non-moslems is "hate speech".
============
Thought-crime laws are the lowest and possibly most poisonous tricks of totalitarianism.
But if the intent were benign we would have noticed.
Clearly it is not.
I'll hang out with this just a bit longer.
Incitement To Violence vs "Hate Speech"
It's noteworthy that there is not a push on in the dhimmi capitals of the world, to legislate against or prosecute incitement to violence.
Not that I'm necessarily supporting the minting of new laws on this subject. I'm not certain that it's a good idea.
But let's consider it for a moment.
Incitement to violence is not exactly measurable with a ruler and a test-tube, but it's fairly specific. You can ask, "does this statement ask the listener to go out and commit an act of violence? Does it recommend that they do so? Does it claim that it would be a virtuous act?".
These are at least things that could be considered in context and determined logically.
And after all, the prevention of violence is what the dhimmi officials claim to be interested in.
Hate speech by contrast -- exactly what constitutes hate speech?
Is it the use of the word hate, as in "I hate seeing people hit their pets", or "I hate the coffee at this restaurant" ?
Is it a statment that implies a strong personal aversion, as in "That guy stinks! I wish he had never been born!" ?
How about saying that the people who died in the World Trade Center were all "little Eichmanns" ?
What for the love of Pete is "hate speech" ?????????????
============
NON-OBJECTIVE law is simply a license for officials to prosecute (persecute?) those of whom they disapprove, provided they can come up with a vague excuse that uses a few vague but legally sanctioned words.
============
Once you've gotten your pet politician to put a non-objective law on the books, it's simply a matter of bribing or pressuring him/her to use it against your enemies.
I wonder if the Finnish authorities will also try prosecuting Colonel Dale C. Eikmeier and the US Army War College?
There's an interesting article at
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/07spring/eikmeier.htm
While I think he isn't being intellectually honest in the article by not acknowledging where most of the funds for these Qutbists are coming from, he does get close to Robert on some points, such as:
"Attacking the message also requires a paradigm shift for moderate Muslim spokesmen. Defending Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance with the subliminal objective of blunting Western criticism of Islamic extremism does little to help in defeating the terrorist or saving Islam.
These spokesmen need to shift to the offensive, targeting their rhetoric and philosophy against their own disillusioned people in an effort to expose Islamic-Fascism for the evil it is. This is probably the only way they will extract themselves and their followers from the catastrophic plague infecting Muslim culture and threatening world peace.
Failure to actively pursue such a strategy might suggest that the problem is not with extremism but with the basic tenets of Islam".
He ought to counter-attack and file a complaint trying to get the Koran banned for fomenting hatred, like that guy in Calcutta back in 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calcutta_Quran_Petition
He should at least go to the police station armed with scores if not hundreds of quotes from Islamic scriptures (ones long enough to make the 'out of context' argument look silly.)
Why isn't the Finnish police, or any of the European police for that matter, investigating the thousands of mosques that preach hatred and murder to all infidels
Perhaps because nobody has thought of filing an official complaint. And perhaps the reason is that people are afraid of what will happen to them if they become official complainants. Plus they would probably need some evidence, like going in and recording the hate speech -- which has its own risks
"-- which has its own risks
Posted by: PapaBear"
....ideed it does, but it has been done....it is not impossible...
"What George Orwell prophesied, is coming true. "
yes what George Orwell prophesized haves come true a long time ago. Thought crimes have been illegal for some time. I heard that the US is trying to pass hate speech laws now too. This is scary. In the EU you can go to jail for criticizing Islam, questioning the holocaust, etc. Even though denying the Armenian holocaust or Greek and Assyrian is okay. Not only are these laws an infringement on free speech and though they are also hyprocritical and unbalanced.
Jihadwatcher: this is not like that in Canada. The Bill of Rights and Freedoms guarantees "b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"
Untrue. Ernst Zundel was a test case. He published material denying the Holocaust. He was tried, convicted and jailed in Canada. In the United States, that would never have happended. Convicting someone because of their views, however bigoted, is not freedom of expression. However, if an arab was to do that, he would get away with it in Canada. In fact, they are getting away with it in Canada. If a Christian does it, he goes to jail.
I believe, and I may be wrong on this, that if Robert Spencer were to lecture in Canada, he would be arrested.
In Leftist societies, there is a pecking order. The muslims are at the top of that order.
Freedom of Speech is the most important freedom of all. Truth always wins out if people can hear it. Only by silencing voices, can evil metastasize.
jihadwatcher-
Neo-Nazi Zundel was not specifially tried and jailed (and it was not for five years) in Canada for his "views", but for "being a threat to national security", and was deported to Germany, where he WAS sentenced to 5 years in jail for his his views on Hitler-love and Holocaust-denial.
These German laws were written after WW II when they were still plenty of Nazis floating around in the Deutsche nation, and they wanted to make sure there wasn't a a propaganda resurgence of the "13 Year" Reich.
By now, the old Nazis are too dead or arthritic to worry about, and these laws should be dumped into the historical dustbin as irrevelant.
But lunatics like Zundel should be kept an eye on as potentially dangerous cranks, since he is enraptured by one of the world's most vicious maniacs to ever gas a trainload of children for their hair and shoes and gold fillings.
He doesn't care about the truth but only the promotion of himself and his diseased fetish of Adolf.
I wish they would just deport him to Iran.
He'd look good sitting on Achmadinejad's lap.
Zundel was tried for "spreading falsehoods". That was the charge they used at the time, as if that could be a crime.
A threat to national security? That's a joke. We got imams in this country preaching the end of our civilization and they are not "a threat to national security." In Canada, if you offend the PC police, you can be fired, arrested, deported, even jailed. But not if you are a muslim.
Freedom of speech does not exist in Canada the way it exists in the States. The US is the last bastion of that, and it looks like it too will go the way of Europe with these new "thought crime" laws.
The case against Elilla:
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 §.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/05/ethnic-agitation-in-finland.html
jihadwatcher-
Naturally, the police should go after the infil-traitor jihadist Imams who are spreading terroristic sedition over any silly crypto-Nazi-wannabes (who no one with a functioning cerebellum in the West will take seriously, having been burned by that cult already).
A Zundel would then be relegated to deserved geekdom and oblivion, selling reproduction SS regalia on Craigslist to cellar-bound goose-steeping dorks.
The radical Imams are seeking the overthrow of the infidel lands, through violence "if necessary for the defense of Muslims".
That's treason. Active. And imminent.
Hitler is old news. The new Islamo-Reich / Caliphate is a little more pertinent.
If one person says X, they thrust the assertion of X into public discussion. Others are then free to assert not X, and give evidence or reasons why.
These countries in Europe accepted freedom from the US after 2 world wars. They also protected cold war protection.
For violating this blogger's freedom, they owe us a full refund, including interest, on all costs including lives lost with full interest. They owe an apology to each family individually which furnished men or women to fight for their freedom.
This Ombudsman can be billed for that and sued in federal district court for the money. This is a violation of the 4 freedoms that FDR and Churchill agreed were the war aims for WWII. The US and UK understood that the UN was founded to preserve the 4 freedoms.
This is being violated by Finland today.
"Textbook-style is emphasised by using pictures."
This sentence is factually in error. Many textbooks contain no pictures. Most books with pictures are not considered textbooks by the public. For example, few people will pay 100 dollars for a book because it contains a picture.
The other statements are just as false. They should have to bring in actual textbooks that are used in actual courses and that sell for 100 dollars. They should do a test, of asking people to examine the text in dispute and see if they would pay 100 dollars for it. If not, it fails the textbook test.
In fact, this text is not even remotely like the text of a textbook. Social science texts would formulate a set of hypotheses, with contrary ones and then try to frame a statistical test of some sort or another to distinguish between them.
This is not done here. That is what makes something scientific, the methodology, not having pictures.
"Illman (page 269)" Is that a textbook? Is it in a textbook? Does that textbook have pictures? A lot of law textbooks don't have pictures. If the govt guy owns one law textbook without a picture in it, he should be held to have made false statements in the complaint. If he himself has textbooks that he owns that don't have pictures, then he made an intentional false statement to the court.
"individuals" He didn't use it about individuals, but a group? So this argument is again, intentional distortion. That shows bias and intent to violate the civil rights of a specific individual.
"Article states" This is an internet article? Those are not interpreted as textbooks because photos are posted. Internet articles are also interpreted vastly differently than textbooks.
If you think things are bad in Finland, you should look at Sweden.
Here is a statement I read on the Brussels Journal.
“Why do you believe Sweden is a democracy? I'm having hard to believe so, atleast a true democracy.
People with politically incorrect opinions are beeing oppressed and jailed without any proof or reason other than some silly statement, like Björn Björkkvist's "I don't think I'm alone feeling miserable when I read about how Swedish girls have been raped by immigranthordes", he got two months in jail.”
Posted by someone called Leonum in the comments section at the end of an essay called
“Jihad and the Collapse of the Swedish Model “ by Fjordman
The treatment meeted out to Björn Björkkvist seems much worse than that threated to Mikko Ellilä
In fact, he actually went to prison.
Would any Swedes care to comment on this?
Are Swedes being imprisoned for thought crime? This is the sort of thing the MSM fails to report, totally abdicating their responsibility as usual.
Surely this is a violation of the right to free speech? After all, Mikko Ellilä did not advocate violence against anyone or racial or religious hatred.
In fact, those who are imprisoned for exercising their right to freedom of speech, in countries like Syria, South Korea or Vietnam, are the kind of people whose cause is taken up by Amnesty International as a “Prisoner of Conscience.”
Why does Amnesty International not do the same for Björn Björkkvist ?
I wish to make a point clear,
While it is debatable whether Mikko Ellilä may or may not have endorsed racial hatred, I do not wish to endorse his views.
In fact, rather hastily, I posted my last comment without having read the entire article at Gates of Vienna.
In fact, the real case I was trying to highlight was that of Björn Björkkvist.
I am shocked he went to prison for his views.
Would any Swedes care to comment on free speech in Sweden?
OECD paper on immigration integration into Sweden.
Links to OECD research papers on immigrants in Germany, Sweden, Australia, and Denmark:
How should immigrants be integrated into the labour market?
Is it disparagement to say that immigrant children have a higher high school dropout rate, lower test scores, lower class rank, lower median wage, etc. if those are true? Does the government say such things?
It disparagement to say that men rape women more than vice versa? If an antirape group says that, is it a hate crime?
What if someone says, its not all men, its high school dropouts? What about other explanatory variables? Whatever explains is disparagement of the group indicated by explanatory variables?
Immigrant status, sex, age, ethnicity, education, test scores, wages, children of divorce, etc. All of these explanatory variables are disparagement?
If a blogger or econ prof says that the raw data show group X does more of some act than group Y, is that disparagement?
If the government says, there is an explanatory model that doesn't use membership in group X or Y as a variable, and does as well in and out of sample, but there is no data for crime cases to estimate such a model, it has to be held against the government. If blogger says data shows that the rate of doing act A is higher for X's than Y's, and the government says if we had the data, we could estimate a better model without X or Y as variables, then it has to be held against the government if the government was the one that chose not to assemble the data.
In the case of using welfare, committing crimes, etc., its the government that gathers the statistics and reports them. If the government claims in court that a model based on omitted statistical variables that they chose not to gather would dispense with X as an explanatory variable, then it has to be held against them in court that they didn't gather the data that would underlie their claim.
HOMEPAGE OF MARTTI VIHANTO
quote
"The largest payoff from neuroeconomics will not come from finding rational-choice processes in the brain for complex economic decisions ----. The largest innovation may come from pointing to biological variables which have a large influence on behaviour and are underweighted or ignored in standard theory." Colin F. Camerer (2007, s. 35). LISÄTIETOJA
end quote
Is neuroeconomics forbidden?
NETWORK OF INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS IN FINLAND
quote
A growing number of economists and other social scientists both abroad and, increasingly, also in Finland are worried about the narrowness and dogmatism of the mainstream, neoclassical economics. This influential school of thought attempts to explain economic and many other social phenomena but fails to do so properly due to its anomalous anchoring into the method of optimization (Vihanto 2001). A conspicuous effect of the neoclassical approach is excessive preoccupation with mathematical puzzle solving instead of a genuine interest in the problems of real societies.
end quote
Let's word smith the last sentence:
A conspicuous effect of the hate crime approach is excessive preoccupation by frightened profs with mathematical puzzle solving instead of a genuine interest in the problems of real societies.
The change in preoccupation happened in the 1960's and 1970's and increased in the 1980's. As PC went up preoccupation with problems of real societies went down?
Econ papers in Finland available for download as pdf's in English.
http://www.taloustieteellinenseura.fi/fep/
Click on articles.
Thought Crime? Disparagement?
quote
SULCIS Working Papers, Stockholm University Linnaeus Center for Integration Studies - SULCIS
No 2007:2:
Ethnic Segregation and Educational Outcomes in Swedish Comprehensive Schools
Ryszard Szulkin (ryszard.szulkin@sociology.su.se) and Jan O. Jonsson (janne.jonsson@sofi.su.se)
Abstract: We ask whether ethnic density in Swedish comprehensive schools affect teacher-assigned school grades in ninth grade (age 16). The data, based on two entire cohorts who graduated in 1998 and 1999 (188,000 pupils and 1,043 schools), link school information with Census data on social origin, and enable us to distinguish first- from second generation immigrants. Using multilevel analysis we find the proportion of first, but not the second, generation immigrant pupils in a school to depress grades in general, but particularly for (first generation) immigrant pupils. Passing a threshold of more than 40 percent immigrants reduces grades with around a fifth of a standard deviation, affecting fourteen percent of immigrant children. Our main results are robust to model specifications which address omitted variable bias both at individual- and school-level. One policy implication of our results is that desegregation policies which concentrated on the two per cent most segregated schools would probably improve school results and reduce ethnic inequality.
Keywords: Ethnic inequality; Immigrant schooling; Educational attainment; Contextual effects; Ethnic inequality; Immigrant schooling; (follow links to similar papers)
JEL-Codes: I21; J15; (follow links to similar papers)
46 pages, April 20, 2007
end quote
S-WoPEc: Scandinavian Working Papers in Economics
See especially H and I
H Public Economics
Search Refine
I Health, Education, and Welfare
Search Refine
100 papers matching Ethnic inequality in Keywords & Title (maximum of 100 hits returned)
100 papers matching Immigrant schooling in Keywords & Title (maximum of 100 hits returned)
quote
No 2005:8:
Ethnic enclaves and welfare cultures - quasi-experimental evidence
Olof Åslund (olof.aslund@ifau.uu.se) and Peter Fredriksson (peter.fredriksson@ifau.uu.se)
Abstract: We examine peer effects in welfare use among immigrants to Sweden by exploiting a governmental refugee placement policy. We distinguish between the quantity of contacts – the number of individuals of the same ethnicity – and the quality of contacts – welfare use among members of the ethnic group. OLS regressions suggest that both these factors are positively related to individual welfare use. Instrumental variables estimations yield the conclusion that only the quality of contacts matter. An increase of the fraction of the ethnic group on welfare by 10 percent raises the individual probability of welfare use by almost 7 percent.
Keywords: Ethnic enclaves; welfare use; immigrants; (follow links to similar papers)
JEL-Codes: I38; J15; J18; (follow links to similar papers)
36 pages, February 7, 2005
end quote
The above is government funded research at government institutions. This is binding against the government in court. These are their employees publishing this research with their funding. They get promotions and prestige for doing so.
These people hand out the Nobel Prize.
Press Release
quote
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 1974 Prize for Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel to
Professor Gunnar Myrdal and Professor Friedrich von Hayek
...
Controversial Ideas
Mainly by directing most of his research on economic problems in the broadest sense, particularly the negro problem in the USA and the poverty of the developing countries, Myrdal has sought to relate economic analysis to social, demographic and institutional conditions.
end quote
quote from above
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 §.
end quote
Martin Luther King
The Nobel Peace Prize 1964
Nobel Lecture
Nobel Lecture*, December 11, 1964
quote
The present upsurge of the Negro people of the United States grows out of a deep and passionate determination to make freedom and equality a reality "here" and "now".
end quote
quote from above
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 §.
end quote
Negro site:nobelprize.org
Results 1 - 10 of about 35 from nobelprize.org for Negro.
quote from above
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 §.
end quote
More from Martin Luther King speech:
The Quest for Peace and Justice
quote
Then came that glowing day a few months ago when a strong Civil Rights Bill became the law of our land. This bill, which was first recommended and promoted by President Kennedy, was passed because of the overwhelming support and perseverance of millions of Americans, Negro and white . It came as a bright interlude in the long and sometimes turbulent struggle for civil rights: the beginning of a second emancipation proclamation providing a comprehensive legal basis for equality of opportunity . Since the passage of this bill we have seen some encouraging and surprising signs of compliance. I am happy to report that, by and large, communities all over the southern part of the United States are obeying the Civil Rights Law and showing remarkable good sense in the process .
end quote
This is from the same Martin Luther King speech, not the Milton Friedman speech.
They were showing "remarkable good sense" in the 1960's, before hate crime laws, PC speech codes, etc. had ever been thought of.
thank god, i repeat, thank god i am now a united states citizen! the greatest nation on this planet.
thank god, i repeat, thank god i am now a united states citizen! the greatest nation on this planet.
thank god, i repeat, thank god i am now a united states citizen! the greatest nation on this planet.
? sorry for the repeat postings?
i had a weird reply when i originally posted that my post would have to be verified?
There are some aspects of Islam which we should hate: the public hanging of 16 year old girls in Iran for 'crimes against chastity' is one of these.
If you cannot hate the atrocities committed in the name of religion, there is something seriously wrong with you.
“thank god, i repeat, thank god i am now a united states citizen! the greatest nation on this planet.”
Leon, now you can now get down to fighting the dhimmitude in your adopted country (plenty of it about, it seems) that you thought you had escaped by emigrating.