From Helsingin Sanomat:
Jussi Halla-aho, an independent member of the Helsinki City Council elected to the council on the True Finns ticket, ... [was] convicted ... of violating the sanctity of religion ... [and] fined ... EUR 330.
Soon after the sentence was passed, Halla-aho ... repeated the view that got him fined. “In my opinion Islam really is a religion that sanctifies paedophilia, and the Prophet Muhammad is a paedophile”, Halla-aho wrote. He wrote similar ideas in his blog in June last year. He said that he reached his conclusion as the result of a logical chain of thought, noting that the Prophet had a spouse who was underage.
In the view of the court Halla-aho’s arguments were not sincere, even though they appeared logical. The court also stated that logic has no significance when religious questions are involved. According to the court, Halla-aho had no intention of holding a proper discussion on negative aspects of the Islamic faith, but to desecrate the sacred values of the religion under the guise of freedom of speech. According to the court, the statement has a tendency to feed religious intolerance.
Halla-aho was also charged over another statement he made in the same blog article, according to which robbing passers-by and scrounging on taxpayers’ money might be a genetic characteristic of Somalis. In the view of Deputy Prosecutor-General Jorma Kalske, this constituted incitement against an ethnic group, but the court acquitted Halla-aho on the charge. The court found that Halla-aho was simply trying to use satire to criticise authorities for not reacting to a newspaper editorial, which suggested that killing people was a “national, and possibly downright genetic special characteristic” of the Finnish people. The court concluded that Halla-aho was seeking to indicate that immigrants can enjoy better protection from officials than the native population....
Halla-aho says he plans to appeal; the prosecution says it's considering appealing as well. This site claims to reprint an English translation of the post based on which Halla-aho was convicted; this site, which appears to be Halla-Aho's, is said to contain the Finnish original; what is said to be an interview an English translation of an interview with Halla-aho is here.
If anyone can point me to an English translation of the court's opinion, I'd be very much obliged; likewise, if any Finnish speakers can confirm the accuracy of the relevant parts of the translation, or provide their own, that would be excellent. Many thanks to Religion Clause for the pointer. No word on whether the councilman's supporters chanted "Halla-aho Akbar" in his defense.
UPDATE: Just to make it clear, I strongly oppose laws suppressing such speech, for the reasons that I've discussed often and at length in other contexts (such as my commentary on the Mohammed cartoons, and on calls for an emerging international law norm of suppressing anti-religious speech). They would surely be unconstitutional in the U.S., and I think that other democracies shouldn't enact them, either.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Fine for Displaying Israeli Flag in a Spontaneous Counterdemonstration at an Anti-Israel Demonstration:
- Criticizing Islam and Mohammed Is a Crime in Finland:
- Now There's a Law That's Sure To Reduce Ethnic and Religious Tensions:
Nick
Interestingly, how do Muslim groups feel about this? Does the Arab European League consider this an "act of civil disobedience" that shouldn't be punished?
Just askin'.
I'm not fan of these sorts of laws, but this is not a 'thought crime.' It still has an act requirement.
Still, Finland is going to have a tough time punishing people for offending religions.
Interesting...
...errr wait
So the prophet Mohammed was a pedophile I guess. Some one come and arrest me now.
Extradition law requires that the extradition offence be a crime in both the sending and the receiving state, not to mention that it recognises a public policy exception. Good for you, since you may very well have committed a crime in Finland by posting this comment. (Come to think of it, I be in more trouble still, reposting it now. Maybe those European Arrest Warrants weren't such a good idea. And what about EV, moderating this thread? Panic!!!!)
Korostan, että toisin kuin sanomalehti Kalevan pääkirjoitustoimittaja, minä en esittänyt omaa, törkeää väitettäni mielipiteenä vaan käytin sitä kaksinaismoralismin pilkkaamiseen ja arvosteluun. Asiallisesti ottaen, ja evoluution mekanismit huomioiden, ajatus siitä, että verovaroilla loisiminen tai humalassa tappaminen voisivat olla jonkin populaation geneettisiä erityispiirteitä, on mieletön.
Except when it does.
I would think that was a giant step into a large puddle of mud.
I'll bet you 2:1 that the ECHR reverses.
Well, I don't know European law very well, but based on EV's previous post this sounds like it would be unlawful in the Netherlands.
Dutch officials seemed to distinguish between the Muhammad cartoons and the Jewish cartoon by taking the position that the Jewish cartoon is against a group of people while the Muhammad cartoons are a problem because they violate a religious tenet (portraying the Prophet).
In this case, the language "Islam promotes paedophilia" seems to indict a group of people, and therefore would fall under the law.
Although I'm sure EV has his reasons for not linking these stories together, he seemed a bit more defensive of an anti-Jewish cartoon than he is of anti-Muslim statements.
Not that I'm accusing the eponymous conspirator of shenanigans, this post seems more along the lines of a RFI than dealing with the substantive issue.
So in other words, after enormous personal stress and (in all likelihood) expense, you think there's a 67% chance that Halla-aho might end up where he started? I'll continue to thank goodness for the First Amendment.
Yes, "guise." A crafty use of free speech indeed!
Based on the Leroy case, and given that the fine was an order of magnitude less in this case, I would expect this to be sustained because, as you say, member states are given benefit of the doubt.
You're on.
Not as strange-looking as Chinese ;-)
Of course, before anyone can go to Strasbourg, they have to exhaust national remedies first. (Yet another reason why EU law has more bite. In EU law, all courts, from the lowest to the highest, can ask a prejudicial question in Luxembourg.)
Lulz-worthy on many levels.
What else would you have them do: Enact laws that forbid cruelty to animals, but not cruelty to people?
If they do, it must also cover halal - the same practices, but overseen by Imams rather than Rabbis, yes? So Muslims are also forbidden meat or compelled to circumscribe religious ideals?
Kosher meat seems legal to import into Finland, despite animal rights activist attempts to ban it.
I am supportive of pagan groups bringing back animal sacrifice in Scandinavia, but this faces an uphill battle too :-( (Note that these are cases too where the animal would be eaten.)
And a binding precedent would be set for the future, ensuring that no one else would go through such stress. Note that in the US, many individuals had to go through the same ordeal in order to get the 1A caselaw to where it is today.
Secular purpose much?
[ This came up in the Sunstein thread too -- I'm not very pro-animal-rights but it seems to be quite clearly a matter within the competence of the legislature to enact. ]
No kidding.
Not as strange-looking as Chinese ;-)
I don't count the pictograph languages because they don't even look like languages, they look more like some sort of intricate piece of artwork.
Then how about sanscrit?
This was not about muslims or arabs but about the finnish politics. I dont know if the muslims or arabs know this, and have not seen their comments anywhere.
They were after the party, not Jussi Halla-aho. They do not really care about the arabs or the religion. It is a small party with no influence, but the bigger ones like to show who is boss.
Corruption is really high in Finland.
The translation seems correct to me.
Probably you (the site) would get comments from Jussi Halla-aho himself if you asked.
The courts make decisions based on what they are kindly asked to decide, they do not care about laws, apparently Jussi Halla-aho has just found this out.
"Quite likely, it would be under ECHR case law, too, meaning that this conviction would be unlawful. "
Yes but the judges there are as corrupted as elsewhere, they always have a judge from the country which is accused of something present, and countries do not send honest guys there. The other judges there do not know the law of the country in question, so decision is made by the judge from the country which was accused - and they rarely take cases to their review, despite huge amounts sent there every year as people are mistreated in the courts all the time.
Law does not matter to those in power.
http://www.halalliha.fi/
At least they sell it.
Oh, from my previous post I forgot to include the reasons behind why the big parties do not like true finns, they used to be called smp, suomen maaseudun puolue "party of the finnish countryside" and were, for a while, known for opposing corruption. Still lots do not like them for that so the journalists who usually are for the bigger parties, have given them extremely negative press for years.
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suomen_Maaseudun_Puolue
Another reason, which might be more important, is that the true finns is the only party opposed to forced swedish, which is similar to the forced russian in east europe before the fall of the communism.
More about that from: (use google translate)
http://keskustelut.a-lehdet.fi/apu/topic_show.pl?tid=656
In 1969, Finland prosecuted Harro Koskinen for publishing a picture of his painting called Pig Messiah, which featured a crucified pig. For violating the sensibilities of a religion, Koskinen had to pay a fine.[13][14]
In 2008, the issue of religious sensibilities arose again. On 30 May 2008, Tampere District Court sentenced Seppo Lehto to two years and four months imprisonment for offences which involve hate speech and blasphemy. The court found Lehto guilty of: defamation, incitement of an ethnic group, and violating the sensibilities of a religion. The judgment said that Lehto had violated the sensibilities of Islam because he had disseminated, with insulting intentions, material which openly blasphemes and desecrates that which Muslims deem holy.[14] Outraged at the punishment of Lehto, Jussi Halla-aho, a Helsinki councilman, posted to the Internet in 2008 some controversial remarks about Islam and about Somalis. Those remarks induced the Helsinki District Court to order Halla-aho to trial.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law#Finland
An unofficial translation of the Penal Code of Finland
(there is no official translation)
http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1889/en18890039.pdf
Section 10 - Breach of the sanctity of religion (563/1998)
A person who
(1) publicly blasphemes against God or, for the purpose of offending, publicly
defames or desecrates what is otherwise held to be sacred by a church or
religious community, as referred to in the Act on the Freedom of Religion
(267/1998), or
(2) by making noise, acting threateningly or otherwise, disturbs worship,
ecclesiastical proceedings, other similar religious proceedings or a funeral,
shall be sentenced for a breach of the sanctity of religion to a fine or to
imprisonment for at most six months.
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Christianity is blasted and scorned in all possible verbal ways over here and ALL the cases that goes to the court are dismissed. Last blasphemy trial was over 40 years ago, until now.
Make no mistake. Finland is not the only country that has officialy 'abit more equal' approach considering muslims.
(Can you imagine Marilyn Manson scorn islam the way he does with christianity? Yep, I didn't think so either.)
Other groups have hugely separate rules, the language apartheid is well and alive and getting worse all the time. The Swedes control the marionettes who rule in most of the parties.
Were someone to wish to know more about the country, read the comments (all, not just from the link) from the Washington Post Finland diary, it would take a really long time to read through but eventually it would become clear to avoid the country.
Finland Diary
Wikipedia:
Finland:
GDP (nominal) 2008 estimate
- Total $273.980 billion[2]
- Per capita $51,989[2]
USA:
GDP (nominal) 2008 estimate
- Total $14.264 trillion[4] (1st)
- Per capita $46,859[4] (17th)
Despite the higher nominal GDP the Finns have about 1/4 of the living standard of the americans.
The money goes somewhere else, not to the regular families who typically live in what is called "neukkukuutio" (Russian cube, which refers to the concrete apartment houses which are very common in Finland, Finns have less living space for a person than any other country in northern Europe, less than in Britain, Germany etc.) and has one old car.
Here is a list of the bread lines. People go queue for food in them. Compare that to the population, 5.3 million people in Finland, is that not quite a lot?
link
Finnish corruption hidden in social structure
In fact, I'd suggest the only reason why Paavo Isaksson and his friends care about this "hidden corruption" is because there is no real corruption to worry about.
Regarding bans on kosher meat.... I suppose it depends on who the legislature is.
I don't think one could enact such a ban in this country, for example, or even create a de facto ban by defunding USDA inspections (similar to the horsemeat "ban").
The fundamental question is how pluralist Finnish society should be. That is for them to decide. I think Spain is still recovering from their decision in 1492....
animal has to be pre-stunned
The Kosher Shop
As for pedophilia, I totally agree one should be free to express opinions like this, whether true or not being irrelevant. That said, and while I disagree strongly with moral relativism, what a particular society accepted or had as legal or normal is still worth considering. How old was Jefferson's "mistress" (in quotes because as a slave there wasn't exactly choice)? Horrible behaviour by him, I can still think him a good person in other respects who nonetheless was evil in some ways but behaved in a manner that was ignored but accepted at that time and place.
I suspect that across cultures of the time of Mohammed, a lot of overyoung marriage (not to mention sex without marriage) occurred, in Europe also, and all should be tarred with the same brush. It is still legal in some U.S. states for a female to marry as young as 12. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin. I think that's atrocious, but it is indicative of the historical non-Muslim position that a female could marry as young as 12 and a male at 14 (if I recall correctly). For that matter, how often are historical figures like Alexander the Great, Caesar, etc. described as pedophiles even though by today's standards they are? They're not because unless some horrible group like nambla is trying to make a ridiculous argument, their behaviour was common enough at the time to not be worthy of comment.
Nowhere in the west no one, I repeat, no one, has access to politics in higher level, without accepting and doing 'favours'. It is only a matter of degree and to whom the favours goes to. In worst cases these goes to organised crime - mafia. Only then this is officialy considered as corruption. Where money and politics meet, transactions do happen. This is unavoidable.
It would be easiest to just accept that there is no such thing as equality amongst anyone. Men, forexample, are not equal with each other in group of five.
Court system could be a place where people gets the same, but only and if, there is checks and balances in place.
This only venue, where people could get at least a feeling of equality has been teared down in Finland.
Simple cause&effect logic dictates, that this justice system up here is ad hoc nonsense and as such - irrelevant. Lines are drawn here.
Well, there are two untenable positions relating to how we address this sort of question.
The first is the idea that some folks have that all cultures should be judged solely by our standards because we know better.
The second is that we can't just anybody across cultural and time barriers because we aren't in a position to understand their side.
I reject both those views, BTW. I think that it is patently insane to accept our cultural prejudices of today as universal moral guidance and it leads to all manner of ethics-by-special-pleading. At the same time, after careful review we CAN arrive at ideas relating to how our ancestors MAY have gotten some things wrong. Sexuality though, as it is caught up in many irrational taboos in all cultures, is an especially difficult case.
When we look back at older marriage laws they tend to have ages of consent much younger than today. In general, when we look at these, they tend, usually, to be tied to the older of two ages in question: the onset of puberty and the finalization of minimal education required to fulfil obligations regarding raising a family. The idea (born out even in current society) is that having kids adds responsibilities and cuts down on educational opportunities (whether this is learning all of your mother's cooking recipes, how to keep house, manage servants, etc. or whether it is formal schooling, the considerations are the same). Interestingly enough, this line is STILL the basic line in US law-- marital consent at 18 (coinciding with finishing High School) and sexual consent perhaps starting as many as 2 years earlier.
I haven't had a clear chance to look at Islamic history in this topic, so I reserve the right to make a judgement after doing so. However I don't think one can just look at kids today and assume that they are like kids 1300 years ago.
No, we could not ban kosher meat, either the slaughter or importation.
We could pass neutral laws of general applicability that forbids slaughtering a conscious animal. States could exempt kosher/halal slaughter from those laws, but they are not required to do so. [Employment Division of OR v. Smith]
[ This analysis is limited to the Federal 1A. State Constitutions or Federal Statute might get in the way.]
That would depend on whether religious practices regarding slaughter of meat would be a hybrid right not covered under Smith. It also could not cover facilities engaged in wholely intrastrate commerce regarding kosher meat as this is outside current areas of federal regulation regarding meat sales (thus is differentiable from Raische since it would involve a new expansion into intrastate commerce).
I don't buy your 'hybrid right' argument either. What is the other right that is implicated? Lochner?
California though couldn't ban import of kosher meat from, say, Nebraska.
It seems to be correct and accurate translation, every detail is translated precisely as it was written in Finnish text.
All of the following are my opinions only, having glanced through his writings for about three hours in total:
He wishes to change the current immigration policies of allowing certain people who come without passports to stay in the country.
He is using a lot of statistics to make his point of certain people being a threat to some other people; I cannot tell if the statistics are correct or not but generally I do not much trust statistics. He does not seem to have said it is about genetics in his blogs.
These certain people, seem to include such who have first paid a lot to be smuggled to Europe. Again I wish to point out that these are not his words and am making it short here since he has written a lot in his blogs.
The following is not from his blogs, but from what I have understood the matter is like from elsewhere, not the local newsmedia as they are very restricted in what they say:
After they have come to the country, they have no passport and claim to need political protection or asylym or whatever the correct words could be. Then they are taken to centers where the cost for keeping one for a year can be as high as 58000 euros. These centers are often in small communities where the local people are not always happy to welcome them. The centers are kept by people who probably profit when they keep them. After a while they are either deported or given houses to live in elsewhere. The lines for housing can be long for poor people who cannot afford private housing but the immigrants do not have to wait in the line.
This might easily be told by "the BNP song" although it tells of another country where they do not give much money to the new arrivals. In Finland they do. They can for example get free holidays to the country where they came from. Where they were persecuted.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2673439558173708760#
Again, none of this was from Jussi Halla-aho, his opinions are not those of the song from what I could tell from his blogs the link is there only to explain the situation.
I would estimate or guess that Halla-aho is not against the religion of the muslims in his writings, but rather using the religion as a tool in a predominantly christian country to oppose the immigration of people who he would not wish to immigrate.
As the majority of people have another religion he is repeatedly pointing out the religion of some of the arrivals in order to get the readers support for the cause of not allowing some people into the country.
Therefore his writings as a whole would not be so much against the religion but against those certain people who have not found their place in the countries where they came from or who are seeking a higher standard of living.
The blog entry the conviction was based on was only pointing out the obvious. It is strange indeed that it could be found criminal for pointing out the obvious.
The local newsmedia is against the Finnish, especially the Finnish men. He is selling t-shirts with the words "vhm" - for white heterosexual male. Seems to me that he only wants people to think it would be ok to be a white male.
As the white heterosexual males are a minority who are often the last in line in several matters, he is more defending the said minority than anything else.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.