I have posted before on this case but I will do so again.

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 ?

Posted by: Odyessus at May 5, 2007 6:37 AM

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?

Posted by: Odyessus at May 5, 2007 7:04 AM

While I may sometimes be a misanthrope, I've never been a "racist".

Having seen through this biological fallacy. Since we are ultimately one human "race" that split (climate, diet, self-selection) over millenia into various "breeds", like Whippets and Bulldogs, not into unique "races". Because we can all inter-breed.

The only differences between white, blacks, yellows, reds and browns are the "spice" that the genome enjoys and the genetic diversity which nature requires for us to be able to fight off the diseases she sends to keep us a resilient and ultimately more-healthy species.

We don't talk of "races" of flowers. Or "races" of dogs (except quasi-phonetically in German, with "hondenrassen"- or "dog breeds").

The word "Race" has only use for unpleasant "racist" meanings, as it has evolved, and should be retired and replaced by "groups" (or "breeds", if we want to be self-deprecating).

I'm a proud infidel mutt.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 5, 2007 12:20 PM

Anti-racism is such a powerful agenda because everyone, deep down, holds racist views, whether they would admit to it or not. Only the totally brainwashed deny this, and their brainwashing leads them to seek out unreconstructed "racists" to hate, in leiu of the hatred they secretly feel for people who are different from them, or else the hatred they feel for their own kind, because they secretly believe some other breed of human to be superior in some subjective way.

It is obvious that different breeds of mammals have varying behavior. So it is with humans, though we are capable of altering our instinctual behavior because we are sentient, self-aware, have the divine spark, or whatever you want to call it. We proceed to make value judgements, based on the lifestyle we consider correct, which any decent person wants to protect, no matter what their background.

It has become totally unacceptable to express this, and it is so explosive because people realize instinctively that there is a danger that expressing one's inner bigotry in an environment that does not repress it will lead to a total unraveling of the multicultural ideal of the last 40 years. This ideal has done much good, and I believe it is worth preserving, but not through the force of law. In fact it, like all else in the world created by the hand of men, needs critical analysis.

Posted by: Quijybo at May 5, 2007 1:30 PM

No, he is being tried for his views on Islam. One can tell because his views about the median IQ of various races does not draw the attention of the police regularly.

There may be some statistical legitimacy in such observations on intelligence, just as there are many means among the races. Would anyone dare say that it is invalid to say Germans are larger than the French on average?

As soon as he mentioned the true character of the highly political religion called Islam, that's when he drew the attention of the police--after some blog reader reported him to the police, no doubt.

Robert should not abandon people so quickly because they go after the weak link first. Once the legal precedent is set, they go after stronger links in the chain. In other words, they will be nipping at your heels next, Hugh. Besides, Mikko Ellilä did not advocate violence or hatred against anyone, as far as we can tell.

Posted by: Bruce Keegan at May 5, 2007 2:33 PM

The importance of critics of Islam being seen to have clear blue water between themselves and racists, fascists and xenophobes cannot be overstated . I also think it is not a logical necessity to subscribe to a right wing or conservative outlook, or firmly believe in a non-Islamic faith, to be a vigorous opponent of the spread of Mohammedan ideology. People on the left who have no illusions about the nature of Islam should do everything they can to dissuade their side from an unholy alliance with such a politically reactionary and socially retrograde force.

Posted by: wallyUK at May 5, 2007 4:10 PM

When the Finnish authorities start putting preachers in jail for agitating for the murder of infidels I'll start regarding them as well intentioned.

Until then they remain dhimmi overseers in my eyes.

Posted by: joeblough at May 5, 2007 4:10 PM

To borrow the language familiar to children everywhere...

"Hot Potato! (toss...)"

On a more serious note, however, I've read that women are less and less represented among the ranks of IQ as the IQ levels increase. As a woman, what should I make of that claim? It appears plausible. And I have no problem with exploring the truth or falsity of that claim in an objective sense. I wouldn't deny that men on average have hugely superior upper body strength compared to women either. It's just a fact. It seems to me that it shouldn't be facts but what human beings DO with such facts that is at issue.

Posted by: Caroline at May 5, 2007 4:38 PM

To follow up on my previous post, Howard Gardner was an influential theorist in the field of human intelligence who posited that there were different kinds of intelligence.

Among them he listed:

Linguistic intelligence
Logical-mathematical intelligence
Musical intelligence
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence
Spatial intelligence
Interpersonal intelligence

This makes a whole lot of sense to me, the notion of different "kinds" of intelligence. I'm not too shabby in the realm of "interpersonal" (i.e. social) intelligence but if you hand me a map, I have to turn it upside down so that it's aligned with my own orientation in order to read it. In other words, I'm a typical female!

So what are we measuring when we measure intelligence with a capital I? Mostly, I assume we are measuring "logical-mathematical intelligence". I have no problem in recognizing from an objective POV that people excelling in this form of intelligence (like Einstein) are utterly invaluable to our civilization. And it may well be the case that women are genetically underrepresented in this realm of intelligence. But what of it, if that were to be the case? It may also be the case that men are underrepresented in the area of "social intelligence", which maybe women excel at.

But here is the big question. When it comes to the large affairs of state that determine outcomes for so many human beings, what kind of intelligence is most required? Is it "logical-mathematical" intelligence? Is it "spatial" intelligence (presumably useful for army generals)? Is it social intelligence (that requires empathy) that women appear to excel at?

Is it really any of those things?

Or is it something more akin to common sense?

What is "common sense"? Is it measured by sheer IQ or by any of the discrete forms of intelligence that Gardner lists?

Maybe "common sense" merely refers to something that can't be measured by any IQ test because it refers to something akin to a "fully integrated" human being, whereby intellectual capacity and social intelligence and moral intuition etc etc just all come together into one package.

How does one measure "common sense"? How does one measure what makes a fully integrated human being?

I don't think one can take the measure of it. But in the end, it's probably what matters most when it comes to influencing the big picture of human affairs and history.

We shouldn't shy away from scientific explorations of stuff like general IQ or subscale statistical inquiries about different kinds of intelligence and who does or does not excel in those areas because we are afraid of what such an inquiry might reveal. Because we will no doubt find out that there is an endless division among human beings in the specific kinds of skills and talents that they naturally possess.

But in the end, it's the total human being that counts. And I don't think there will ever be a way to measure how it all comes together to create that total package. That total package - the human being, will ALWAYS remain a mystery. We should have a little more faith in that fact...

Whoops - I forgot myself for a minute when I wrote all that.

Hot Potato! (toss)...!

Posted by: Caroline at May 5, 2007 7:14 PM

Can’t these Europeans understand what freedom of speech & press mean in their constitutions? It means the right to impart information or opinions even when they are very upsetting to some people. That’s precisely what freedom of expression is about - pleasant tea party chat needs no protection. The exceptions are very few such as matters of, national security, “fighting words”, calls to violence, and crying “fire” falsely in a crowded theater, but certainly communicating information or opinion on religions or religious groups (or well known mean IQ differences) must have zero restrictions. Zero.

Posted by: FM at May 5, 2007 11:32 PM

If this Finnish guy is in trouble just think of all the trouble muslims are in? Because of course everyone knows what a bunch of perverted rapist pedophiles they are.

Posted by: Barry at May 5, 2007 11:49 PM

"I also think it is not a logical necessity to subscribe to a right wing or conservative outlook, or firmly believe in a non-Islamic faith, to be a vigorous opponent of the spread of Mohammedan ideology."

Exactly, that is why I, a fairly centre-left feminist with many gay friends, attend this forum and try and get my friends aware of the issues. That is why this forum needs to welcome those of us from the 'left' who venture here.

Regarding the Finnish guy and his apparently racist theories: we still need to oppose thought-crime legislation. Put it this way, I hate misogynistic blather, but as long as someone isn't actually advocating violence against women, freedom of speech must prevail. The fact that some people find it insulting and painful is the very TEST of freedom of speech.

Posted by: Lili at May 6, 2007 4:12 AM

We should all be very concerned about the threatened prosecution and harassment of Mr. Mikko Ellilä by Finnish authorities for postings of thoughts and opinions he has made on his own personal blog (not to mention the imprisonment of Björn Björkkvist in Sweden and the). (See http://mikkoellila.thinkertothinker.com/ ) Freedom of Expression of ANY type -- whether or not ANY of us agree with the words or ideas expressed -- is CENTRAL TO and INDISPENSIBLE to a living, breathing, healthy democracy. Without such, democracy, freedom of conscience, and a free marketplace of ideas in public policy, society, and academia CAN NOT exist.

There is NO room in a democracy for laws (such as those in Finland and that are becoming more popular in many Western countries) that regulate or stifle free expression that does not call for violence. With a law like Finland's neither Luther, Calvin, Voltaire, nor Kant could have ever written what they wrote. What Mikko Ellilä wrote about Islam is NO DIFFERENT -- whether you agree with it or not. Like Mikko Ellilä, the above men criticized religion, culture, and beliefs. In past intolerant centuries, many tried to kill these Europeans who freelly expressed their thoughts -- and yet the freeest of those societies HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO tolerated such WORLD-CHANGING expressions. Others less free or who FEARED such ideas, in Europe's past, tried to SILENCE such intellectuals and their expressions. Today this happens regularly in the Muslim world and other totalitarian states. Even so, modern-day Finland...and many other countries in Europe...can tolerate free expression little better, if at all, than Egypt or Azerbaijan's identical prosecution of writers for expressing certain opinions about Islam and Muslims. And those writers criticizing Islam were MUSLIMS; so maybe Mr. Mikko Ellilä may have some valid points? (See http://metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061108-110329-6724r and http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/04/europe/EU-GEN-Azerbaijan-Journalist-Trial.php ) He should at least be able to express them...as should a courageous woman like Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. (See the Wall Street Journal at http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009771 )

In a democracy, ALL speech, except for speech that DIRECTLY calls for and/or incites V-I-O-L-E-N-C-E against a group or person, MUST be tolerated. Laws that call for prosecution of individuals and persons for LESS than incitement to V-I-O-L-E-N-C-E are well-meaning, yet far over-reaching acts of political correctness that do away with rights to FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION many individuals in many Western countries -- and in many developing countries -- have DIED and given their lives to protect or establish. The intent to create and enforce such laws in Finland that CRUSH free expression are EXACTLY the same as those created by governments and enforced in Egypt, Azerbaijan, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey...and all across EUROPE. With laws like that, who needs a censorship office or an Imam or a Communist Party or a Nazi Party or a Taliban to censor us? We've done it all by ourselves...well, at least in Finland...Sweden...and most of Europe.

Truths can sometimes be uncomfortable. Yet uncomfortable truths are often those that MOST need to be expressed. If they turn out not to be the truth, they will be rebuffed, refuted, and seen for what they are -- unworthy words and ideas. BUT! If they are the truth...and are worthy words and ideas...they can cause CHANGE in societies and among peoples and in laws. Laws that forbid speech simply hinder free expression and quash legitimate public discussion and debate of relevant issues of public concern. Such are always found in dictatorships and theocracies. They ONLY cause damage and harm to a democracy.

We should all expect and demand far better from a great and otherwise free countries like Finland and Sweden. Below are the e-mail addresses of some leading members of parliament in Finland and Sweden, the Finnish press, and the Finnish authorities. Please send RESPECTFUL e-mails asking them to: 1) stop the harassment of Mikko Ellilä, Björn Björkkvist, and others like them; 2) do away with laws that hinder and punish free expression; and 3) support the fragile democracies and democratic institutions many in the past have given their precious lives to protect. Kiitos.

Finnish Members of Parliament:

tarja.filatov@riksdagen.fi, timo.kalli@riksdagen.fi, bjarne.kallis@riksdagen.fi, annika.lapintie@riksdagen.fi, pekka.ravi@riksdagen.fi, anni.sinnemaki@riksdagen.fi, raimo.vistbacka@riksdagen.fi, ulla-maj.wideroos@riksdagen.fi,

Finnish Authorities:

Mikko.Puumalainen@mol.fi, sanomat.was@formin.fi, passi.was@formin.fi, krp-kirjaamo@poliisi.fi, anne.lammila@formin.fi,

Finnish Press:

jukka.harju@sanoma.fi, harri.uusitorppa@sanoma.fi, kalle.koponen@sanoma.fi, debatt@hbl.fi, markus.west@hbl.fi, nyheter@vasabladet.fi,

U.S. and Other Embassies in Finland:

consular@usembassy.fi, mari-anna.suurmunne@international.gc.ca, hsnki@international.gc.ca, hannele.luukkainen@fco.gov.uk, brian.olley@fco.gov.uk,

Swedish Members of Parliament:

henrik.von.sydow@riksdagen.se, ingvar.svensson@riksdagen.se, mauricio.rojas@riksdagen.se, veronica.palm@riksdagen.se, kerstin.lundgren@riksdagen.se, pernilla.zethraeus@riksdagen.se, maryam.yazdanfar@riksdagen.se, fredrik.schulte@riksdagen.se, mildred.thulin@riksdagen.se, lena.olsson@riksdagen.se, hillevi.larsson@riksdagen.se, max.andersson@riksdagen.se, inger.davidson@riksdagen.se,

Posted by: ingen_dhimmi at May 6, 2007 6:55 AM

When someone blogs 2+2=3, its ignored as error. When the government says 2+2=3 and someone blogs 2+2=4 and gives reasons, then its rebellion.

The government says they are disparaging the government, and casting the honor and integrity of the government into doubt. These are crimes that threaten the hierarchy in power.

The great lie is that immigration today is a benefit, when its a harm. The earth is crowded and immigration brings problems and costs that exceed benefits. But the hierarchy has come to power for decades saying immigration is good.

When a blogger says its not and gives reasons, its an act of rebellion. This is calling into doubt and disrepute the hierarchy. This is what this story is about. The hierarchy must suppress that they lied about immigration. Immigration today is on net harmful. That's the truth they must suppress. Its their position they care about, nothing else.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 6, 2007 10:07 AM

Lili,

I know that I welcome anyone of any political view here, except for the pro-islam trolls. I'm glad that anyone from the left-wing, liberal side is here and learning. I must say though, that our new congress has so greatly disilluisioned me with its lack of support for our troops and lack of foresight for the future of the middle east due to partisan politics that I am a definite anti-Democrat in the next election.

Karl

Posted by: schwaben at May 6, 2007 3:02 PM

Lili,

I know that I welcome anyone of any political view here, except for the pro-islam trolls. I'm glad that anyone from the left-wing, liberal side is here and learning. I must say though, that our new congress has so greatly disilluisioned me with its lack of support for our troops and lack of foresight for the future of the middle east due to partisan politics that I am a definite anti-Democrat in the next election.

Karl

Posted by: schwaben at May 6, 2007 3:03 PM

Hitler, Stalin and Muhammad showed that ordinary people can appoint themselves to ruin the world, and succeed. This means that ordinary people can appoint themselves to save the world, and succeed.

This is what those in power fear. They know they are not extraordinary, and are telling lies that are interesting only in that they succeed in being paid lip service to. They not only fear, but know that they can be exposed by ordinary people who appoint themselves to expose it. This is why they are fighting back against those who do appoint themselves to tell the truth, people known as bloggers.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 6, 2007 5:29 PM

"Why does Amnesty International not do the same for Björn Björkkvist ?"

because amnesty intl is a socialist west hating organisation.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at May 6, 2007 5:34 PM

The point on Amnesty International is a good one. To return to my previous comment.

This is also why the act of oppression is most important, even more than what was said. Its the cover-up that exposes the lie of those in power. They give away what they know is the lie.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 6, 2007 5:35 PM

Karl, from what I've been hearing, I'd be voting for Rudi if I were an American :)! An understanding of the islamist threat would drive my voting above most other things.

Posted by: Lili at May 6, 2007 6:45 PM

More hate crime law are needed to stop hate crime. I cannot wait when there is than Federal Hate Crime Law like in part of Australia. Texas have than hate crime law which the demoncrate pass many year ago but the GOP refuse to enforce even when a hate crime
is committed by hate monger. They one recient gave a right wing christian nutjob 30 year behind bar in Texas for burning down some muslim own bussienes these muslim are first America Citren for over 20 years with no criminal record. The local electic Demoncrat city attn have to handle the criminal case against this person as the republician appoint person refuse to handle the case. This damagous christian is now behind bar for 30 year it also could include 30 year or reedustration after being free from behind bar.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam at May 10, 2007 6:22 PM