text:
How exploited are immigrants in Finland?
I spoke with an SDP MP recently about how Finland had turned into a two-tier market, where small- and medium-sized companies were allegedly exploiting on a grand scale immigrant employees by overworking and grossly underpaying them.
I asked why there haven't been any big cases in the media about this type of exploitation and why the SDP is so passionate about the matter before elections? There has been some news in the media about how some fast-food establishments do underpay and overwork immigrants but it does not suggest a national trend.
An important question that one should ask is how widespread it is and why the authorities have done so little? If it is widespread, it is further proof of how disenfranchised immigrants are in this country.
I say if because I have not seen many cases published in the media only the concern of the Social Democrats, who point the finger accusingly more at immigrants than employers.
Do you know of any cases of immigrants being exploited by employers in Finland?
Tags: Finland, Immigrants in Finland, Social Democratic Party
JusticeDemon August 27th, 2010
The marginalisation and eventual abolition of the single-employer work permit has greatly reduced the worst cases of licensed migrant labour abuse. This reform was achieved through immigrant lobbying to improve migrant labour mobility.
There are some indications that businesses in the new economy tend to underpay migrant workers in the broad sense of placing them on the lowest collective agreement salary scales regardless of job requirement. On the other hand, direct failure to pay legally enforceable minimum rates to licensed migrant workers seems to be a rarity nowadays. This is partly because employers are required to specify the applicable collective agreement when hiring newly or recently arrived third-country nationals, and it is a criminal offence to make false declarations in this regard.
AFAIK the Severita/Sol case involving Chinese laundry workers was the last major example of evident migrant labour abuse to surface in the national and trade union press. This involved various forms of cheating that were a throwback to the late 1980s, but the scam could not be maintained for long and the consequences for the employer were swift and severe when the industry trade union uncovered the case. Severita Oy appears to have gone out of business as a result, and I understand that certain criminal prosecutions ensued.
The main problem nowadays is probably witting or unwitting exploitation by employers of the ignorance and lack of networking of newly arrived migrant workers. An immigrant who learns how the labour market works, joins the trade union and makes industry contacts will soon be in a position to work the system in the same way as native colleagues. Much the same can be said of all newcomers to the labour market.
Tony Garcia August 27th, 2010
Well it's all boils down to standards.
When you bring in immigrants from civilized countries like US, Germany, France, Norway, Japan, South Korea, etc. you're bringing in educated and civilized people, so even though they may not know how the Finnish system works, soon enough they will find it out, avoiding such exploitation to happen.
However when you bring in people who are used to live from UN ration bags, who are used to settle trivial disputes at gun point or who believe that everything we do is against their religion, you create a mass group of people who will be delighted to work for 1 euro per hour/ 15 hours a day, especially knowing that the Finnish taxpayer will foot the bill for all the indulgences their wages can't buy it.
So it's a simple equation, if you lower the standard of who you are bring in, you also lower the standards of the country.
Enrique August 27th, 2010
–who are used to settle trivial disputes at gun point or who believe that everything we do is against their religion,
How do Europeans settle/settled their disuptes? Those countries that you talk about are a drop in the bucket with the mass murder we have committed in this continent. You will always run into serious argument problems when you simply whole groups and paint them black and white. Congratulations on your English, which has improved remarkably.
Moreover, one great grandparent that came from Italy was illiterate when he moved to Argentina in the 1890s. It was common for Italians to not know how to read and write in the late nineteenth century. Now, by your "simple equation if you you lower the standard you lower the standards of the country," why didn't countries like Argentina, Brazil, United States, Canada, Australia go down the drain?
Immigration means beginning a new life somewhere else and (trying) excelling in that new home.
Amigo Enrique, is that your case? We should accept illiterate immigrants because illiterate Italians went to the Americas and succeeded? 120 years ago? Sorry but don't you think things have changed a bit? Don't you think literacy and education are a bit more important in today's Finland than back then?
The same goes for terrorism, should we open your borders to terrorists because we had wars? As fair as I remember the last one was 70 years ago and I believe we have changed since.
Furthermore, we had not only 2 wars but inquisition, dark ages, Roman Empire, etc. We have looked the evil in the eye, fought against and defeated it… many times. But wasn't cheep, it was paid with the life of our ancestors. Europe was forged by the blood of Europeans, not by the petro-dollars of terrorists.
We should have learned; we should say loud and clear: Not again… We don't need another barbaric autocracy rotting your society from within. We had enough.
The meaning of excelling differs greatly depending on where you come from…
–We should accept illiterate immigrants because illiterate Italians went to the Americas and succeeded? 120 years ago?
What I am saying is that your argument is flawed. Just because they are illiterate does not mean that they can never learn how to read and write and make something out of their lives. You are stating that ALL people are suspect from a certain region and we should avoid them like the plague. Your view of the Other is, in my opinion, incorrect. You cannot generalize and label one group as bad and the other one better, best. If a person has an education it does not really matter where he comes from. He has learned the tools to influence and be a more adaptive person in society.
I am going to ask you a personal question: What did certain minorities in Europe do to you to make you so hostile to them?
–Europe was forged by the blood of Europeans, not by the petro-dollars of terrorists.
The Moors, Phoenicians to name a few…
–We don't need another barbaric autocracy rotting your society from within. We had enough.
The Nazis used the same argument to expel the Jews from Germany. That was also the argument by some military dictatorships in Latin America: Usurp power, establish military rule in order to SAVE our way of western life. It was a bunch of phony baloney.
I believe that type of talk, including your view that Europe should kick out certain groups, will lead us back to 1933. In order for you to do that, you will have to shelve the constitution and human rights. Not a good thing for us never mind for future generations.
xyz August 27th, 2010
The same goes for terrorism, should we open your borders to terrorists because we had wars?
-What the percentage is of immigrants who are terrorists?
I found a video which says that actually 1/4 of the young Finns are unemployed (in Helsinki 80%). However, you can also see that there is a Restaurant owner with a foreign background who gives a job to a Finn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARCNBPV_jnc
So it's not always that only immigrants want to get jobs. In Germany for example many Turkish immigrants are Entrepreneurs.
here is actually the whole video and it also explains why there are so many unemployed in Finland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_bgIFyIRdY&feature=channel
Thank you xyz for this. It is interesting what they mentioned about Finland being a paradox: It has the best education system in the world but few jobs for young people. Unemployment among the young has soared by 80% in Helsinki!
Tony, you are blowing down your own straw man. Employers cannot bring in the cheap labour that you have described. I refer you to chapter 5 of the Aliens Act.
Seems that there are not many opportunities even for the natives. I didn't know that the unemployment rate is so high in Helsinki for young people before I watched this Video 10 minutes ago.
So, that's what it's now… "Hate". First what I was saying was "racism". Then I was motivated by self-interest, now I just "hate". Once I read that the truth is the first casualty of multiculturalism, so it's.
The first commandment in the multicultural bible says – "Thou Shalt Not Bow Down to The Truth".
That's because multiculturalism, like any other left wing policies, are not based on rational thinking but emotions. It doesn't matter if it's good or not, what matter is how fluffy you feel about it.
Tree words: racism, bigotry and hate, has been so disfigured by the Politically Correct Gestapo that today they only means censorship. For that reason, am I a racist bigoted hatemonger? Of course I am, what else could I be? And honestly, do I care?
Yle reported today that there are thousands of applications filled by Somalis to bring "foster children" to Finland, that's on top of thousands more for family unification. Very well… a question… Who will feed all these people? Who will house them? Give schools, medical assistance, etc?
This is a hateful question, obviously, and if you dare to answer – the Finnish tax payer, you are another racist bigoted xenophobic islamophobic bastard kafir. However I guarantee I'll be asking this "hateful" question until next election… A lot…
Furthermore, each one of these thousands, as soon as they get to Finland, will find some yooman rites "lawyers" to fill thousands more application on their behalf. Of course these "lawyers" will just to that because they believe this will enrich their bank accounts… ups, sorry, that was hate speech… they believe this will "enrich" Finland. That's more like it…
–truth is the first casualty of multiculturalism, so it's.
Tony, the correct quote is: Truth is the first casualty of war.
Don't worry Tony, if you would read the news then you would know more:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/08/tighter_rules_on_family_reunification_1940116.html
Concerning the Somalis, you should be happy that you live in a safe place.
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Somali+immigrants+in+Finland+agonising+over+events+in+their+former+home+country/1135259607236
I feel also completely bad that my parents are not from the same country. So stupid that I am a product of multiculturalism.
Again Tony, which of your own human rights do you think are unnecessary?
It seems to me that you don't know what the term means.
"Truth is the first casualty of war."
Tony, instead of trying to figure out how to kick out certain groups from Europe, have you ever thought about how different groups can live in harmony? I really think it is important because the consequences of doing things wrong can be devastating for all parties concerned. In the United States they tried to exclude the black man for centuries but then things changed. In parts of Latin America excluded people like Amerindians are finding their new identity in society. There is no way you can change things in Europe because we were, are and will be multiethnical (is that a better term for you?). In the United States we have a saying: If you can't beat them join them.
Klay_Immigrant August 30th, 2010
-'the consequences of doing things wrong can be devastating for all parties concerned.'
Tell me what are these devastating consequences for Finland of not allowing any more refugees or asylum seekers into the country? I can't think of any.
Immigration should be a two way process where both sides benefit from eachother. It's obvious how refugees and asylum seekers benefit from Finland but what about vice versa? Unless you call having to pay for free housing, welfare, education, medical bills, language and cultural classes to unemployed, uneducated, sometimes illerate people a benefit to Finland. Hardly seems fair does it. All take but no giving back in return apart from being ungrateful and to say Finns are racist. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Honestly I don't understand the rational and logical thinking behind allowing these people into Finland. Maybe because their isn't any rational or logical thinking involved. A case of heart ruling over the head.
Enrique August 31st, 2010
Apart from what JusticeDemon pointed out, what kind of a society would we be if we turn our backs on people that come from failed states and dictatorship? What kind of a society would we be if we did kicked out without due process people from our country? Those are values and our values are crucial in our society. If we do things wrong, allow exclusion, prejudice and cultural chauvinism to get the best of us, we will create Frankenstein societies. One of these was the former Yugoslavia. I think there is ample proof in history that if you go around dictating terms on other groups to exclude them, you are going to get yourself in a lot of hot water. That goes for any group in society not only minorities. The role of society is to include NOT exclude.
If, as you claim, immigration and refugees come to Finland just to "benefit from the system," what does it tell us? It tells us that you have little idea with the source of the problem that encourages people to flee from their failed countries and what our role should be. I have said before that immigration will reveal many ugly and nice things about who we are. The ugly part is our racism and the good things are those crucial pathways to inclusion in our society.
And yes I realise there are two typos.
More than two typos.
A policy of expelling refugees and asylum-seekers would require Finland to withdraw from the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention. The associated systematic infringement of the key Convention principle of non-refoulement would also eventually force Finland to renounce the European Convention on Human Rights and withdraw from the Council of Europe. All of the members of the European Union are members of the Council of Europe and the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights are accordingly applied as customary law by the European Court of Justice, so in order to apply the original policy consistently, Finland would also have to withdraw from the European Union. Such withdrawal would require massive divestment by Finnish companies of holdings in other Member States that depend on reciprocal Community privileges, and would effectively place Finland and its business community outside of the mechanisms that govern policymaking in its largest trading partner.
Most people would characterise such consequences as devastating.
matchstic August 31st, 2010
I have absolutely no idea how I came to this blog, but am so glad I have. What an interesting discussion. I'm also really impressed with the level of decency and civility between the posters. I'll definitely be back 🙂
Hi matchstic, we are very happy that you found Migrant Tales. You are most welcome to take part in these debates and reading how Australia's multicultural model works.
Tony Garcia August 31st, 2010
Enrique don't fall for this left-wing baloney, the hell won't break loose and the prophet won't come out and hit us with his sword of fire, this is just in the left's mind. Let's go back to the real world, shall we?
1. Finland must consider asylum applications not grant it. The decision is completely at the immigration service discretion.
2. Finland must consider applications from those who entered the country. That's why border enforcement is not a right but a obligation of any civilized society towards its people. Finland is obligated to accept only EU passport holders.
3. Refugee status is not for life. Finnish law clearly states that this status can be revoked as soon as the conditions has changed. The assessment of those conditions is also at the Finland's discretion. Germany is sending families back who received refugee status 17 years ago, with children born in Germany.
4. Family unification is granted based on Finnish immigration law alone.
I accept your opinion that this should not be done, don't agree with but accept, but please don't fall for the "cannot be done" delirium.
As you can see, my friend, the "devastation" is only in the left's mind, but do you really want to talk about real devastation? A Muslim blowing the shit out of a school bus full of Finnish children. That is real devastation.
Things in la-la-land, where the left lives, are a bit different than in our real world, we need to keep our feet to the ground, especially when talking about national security.
–Enrique don't fall for this left-wing baloney, the hell won't break loose and the prophet won't come out and hit us with his sword of fire, this is just in the left's mind.
I never knew defending civil rights was only a "left-wing" thing. Aren't we taught to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land that are passed by our legislature? Real devastation is sowing hatred for your own political means. If you are religious as you claim, where does all this hatred come from? A little forgiveness, maybe?
Enrique let me ask you a question, but I'd like to ask you to put aside your personal opinion about immigration and multiculturalism. I'd like your strict journalistic opinion.
Today a read the same news 3 times. Its about the True Finns rising in the polls. I read from Yle, Helsinki Times (with is run by an immigrant) and News Room. All has something interesting in common.
Yle says – The right-wing True Finns. HT says the opposition's True Finns, and NR says only True Fins. Very well…
If I'm not mistaken, few months ago, any news about True Finns would bring the word populist connected to its name, but not today. Now my question…
Is the direction of the wind starting to change already or just a coincidence?
It's only a poll many months before the elections in April. Remember, unemployment has gone down and the economy is showing signs of recovery. Do you think that a populist and xenophobic party will get into government? If they do you think they will start to close Finland's borders? I don't think so. Finland has to get itself in first gear concerning a sustainable immigration policy that will benefit the country and immigrants. Do I think the True Finns have any idea? No. Do I think that the Social Democrats (Heinäluoma line) understand? No. What about the other parties? Maybe.
JusticeDemon August 31st, 2010
Tony, you really haven't got much idea of how government works in a constitutional State or the limitations imposed on a sovereign legislature by the international instruments that bind that State.
The FIS is a government department bound by the rule of law. An instruction to process applications but not grant asylum even to applicants who qualify would have to be set out in an Act of Parliament. The parliamentary Committee for Constitutional Law would find that any such instruction conflicts with the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention and would block its passage into statute.
The decisions of FIS are also subject to judicial review. Any decision not to grant asylum to an applicant who qualifies would be quashed by the administrative court and returned to the authority for reconsideration. If it transpired that the public servant concerned was adhering to an ultra vires instruction from a minister of government, then that minister could expect to be charged at the High Court of Impeachment.
Finnish citizens and EU passport holders would also have to negotiate your electrified fences. An asylum application can be submitted to anyone acting on behalf of the State. Most commonly this means the official on duty at passport control.
Cases of this kind concern extraordinary criminality and an individually proven danger to the fundamental fabric of society. To adopt a policy of wholesale forced expulsion of families including children who have lived in Finland for their entire lives and been educated here, Finland would have to withdraw from the Convention on the Rights of the Child and several other international human rights instruments.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in cases concerning the choice of country of familial residence.
"Do you think that a populist and xenophobic party will get into government?"
I hope not, I hope we can send a clear message to Helsinki before that happen.
"Finland has to get itself in first gear concerning a sustainable immigration policy that will benefit the country and immigrants."
That's exactly what we want, Finland can't afford this mess much longer. So far very few has discovered that the doors are opened, we need to close it now, we can't let the situation gets like in UK or Sweden, after that it may be to late.
But yet we didn't answer my question. In your journalistic opinion why is the media getting soft when reporting the True Finns.
"Aren't we taught to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land that are passed by our legislature? "
Absolutely. As I explained in those 4 points, it's just about applying the law. With the right political will the Finnish government can keep Finland safe for our children just by applying the law.
The problems that I see in the left in general and multiculturalists in particularly is that you are all for our laws and constitution, as long as we are not talking about immigration laws.
When comes to immigration we always need to "keep things in perspective", and when someone demands immigration laws to applied he/she is always "blowing things out of proportion", or as more recently, "spreading hate"…
If you think that public servants at FIS or elsewhere are not applying the law, then you should bring this unlawful conduct to the attention of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Attorney General or the responsible minister of government.
Your self-contradictory reasoning on this subject suggests that you have no idea what you are demanding. Please try to identify a particular point of statute that you think should be reformed in some specific way, having regard to the consequences in terms of Finland's international treaty commitments, or alternatively some statute that you think has been incorrectly applied in some specific case.
Everything else is pure wind.
To give one live and current example of this kind of reform, the present Aliens Act makes no allowance for the association agreement between Turkey and the European Union. One consequence of this agreement is that a Turkish citizen who has been granted a residence permit of any kind that includes even a limited right to work (e.g. a university student) is automatically entitled to permanent migrant worker status on securing any form of regular employment (even a part-time job that pays less than the basic rate of supplementary benefit). The case law of the European Court of Justice is completely clear on this point: Turkish citizens enjoy certain treaty-based privileges in the Member States.
The failure of the Ministry of the Interior to formulate the required amendment to the Aliens Act is at best an oversight and at worst represents wilful refusal to perform its statutory function. I am waiting for the first Turkish citizens in this situation to make an issue of this failure by invoking their treaty rights and pressing the matter in the courts and at the European Commission.
Klay_Immigrant September 1st, 2010
Enrique as usual your arguments are purely based on moral values which are subjective and are implemented on one's opinion. As long as no law is broken those arguments are impossible or very difficult to be proved correct. Whereas the practical problems I have pointed out of multiculturalism are based on fact (unemployment, welfare, housing etc).
Finland has absolutely no responsibilty or right to take anyone from third world countries as refugees or asylum seekers. By taking them Finland is not saving their lives. They don't have to travel to Finland to be safe. They could easily go to neighbouring countries in Africa and have the same level of safety but ofcourse since those countries aren't as rich as Finland those refugees and asylum seekers take advantage of the system and move to Europe.
JusticeDemon you exaggerate the consequence of Finland for not taking or hugely limiting refugess and asylum seekers. It's possible unlike what you have said and I'll prove it. A country just has to force it's political will. Apart from EU citizens the borders are controlled by Finland and Finland only.
I'll give you an example, according to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), in 1999 Japan accepted just 16 refugees for resettlement. Between 1981, when Japan ratified the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and 2002, Japan recognized only 305 persons as refugees. For a country with combined population (127.4million) of Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria and The Netherlands 305 refugees in 21 years shows that if a government is opposed to multiculturalism they are able without consequences to impose polices to reinforce that. Japan is a member of the UN and the council of Europe so don't let JusticeDemon fool you into thinkin that you have to accept a certain number of refugees otherwise withdrawl from these organisations is compulsary.
Japan's immigrant population is only 1.6% with virtually no refugees or asylum seekers and that hasn't stopped them becoming a world power with the 3rd largest economy and being one of the most technological advanced countries in the world. These are facts Enrique that I mentioned not moral stand points which you always argue with.
Tony Garcia September 1st, 2010
I was just having a quick snoop around and found a interesting info from the US Department of State about another member of the Council of Europe…
"During the year(2009), the Directorate of Immigration(Iceland) processed 41 applications for asylum. It gave residential permits on humanitarian grounds to 10 persons and granted refugee status to three asylum seekers and two of their dependents. The Directorate of Immigration rejected eight asylum applications and deported 18 asylum seekers to other European countries on the basis of the Dublin Convention."
JusticeDemon September 1st, 2010
Klay_Immigrant: September 1, 2010 at 9:57 am
Japan is a member of … the council of Europe
I'll have some of whatever you are smoking!
By the way, your statistics on Japan are worthless unless you also indicate how many asylum applications were filed, whether there are de facto alternatives to asylum and how naturalisation is arranged. Japan certainly accepted a large number of people displaced by the Korean War, but these would not be Convention refugees in the formal sense. There are nearly a million people of Korean origin in Japan nowadays.
This was interesting:
your arguments are purely based on moral values which are subjective and are implemented on one's opinion
I think the systematic extermination of human beings, including very young children, in Germany, Poland and elsewhere in Europe in the late 1930s and early 1940s for belonging to certain ethnic and religious groups or having a certain biological origin was morally wrong. I also think that this is a statement of fact, not of opinion. It would still be morally wrong, even if everyone approved of it.
When you say that moral values are subjective, you seem to be asserting that there is no fact of the matter. This means that you would be just as correct if you said that the holocaust was a good thing. If you are not using subjective in this sense, then you really ought to explain what you mean by the term and how its use advances your views.
Enrique September 2nd, 2010
Tell me what glues or keeps a a society together? Those are values and without them we are lost. Everything in our society derives from values. Therefore, I totally disagree that they are subjective. Without them we would not have a society.
This conversation has taken an interesting turn. Lets analyze some facts. Ireland is receiving about about 4000 asylum applications per year, Iceland about 41.
Both countries are small islands in the middle of the Atlantic, far away from Africa or ME, both are so called first world countries, both belongs to the CE, and both have been hit by a enormous financial crisis. Now one should wonder, with so many similarities why such difference in the numbers of applications?
Today in Europe, many countries are awaking for the destructive force of multiculturalism. After defeating a great evil no more than 70 years ago, today Europeans are seeing an even greater evil being brought and spreading in an astonishing speed. Some are asking a very important question – "how do you fix this now?".
But I'd ask a different question – "Why do we need to fix a problem if we can prevent it to exits in the first place?".
Many people has said we have a lot to learn from Iceland's financial crisis, I'd say we have far more to learn than that…
Membership of the Council of Europe is not only restricted to European States. Certain countries including Japan and the US act as observers at Parlimentary Assembley and Committee of Ministers meetings.
It's funny how when somebody opposes my views that somehow the halocaust comes in somewhere in their argument as if I'm some sort of denier of advocate for it. I'm not saying huge swaves of people of certain ethnities should be killed or expelled, so please do not mention it to me.
A quick statisitc, 25% of London's seven million residents live in minority religious segregated neighbourhoods. As I've said before multiculturalism is the complete opposite of integration. The two are mutually exclusive.
Japan is not a member of the Council of Europe. Most crucially this means that Japan is not a State Party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which places constraints on possible interpretations of the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention and provides an enforcement mechanism. Any State seeking to join the European Union would begin this process by ratifying the European Convention and joining the Council of Europe, just as Finland did in 1989.
For someone claiming to be a postgraduate student, you really aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Or perhaps you are just trying to duck the challenge to the naive positivism that you expressed in the first sentence of your message at 9.57 a.m. Read what I wrote again and answer the point about subjectivity and truth value. You can substitute for the European holocaust any other event that you insist was morally wrong.
Swaves? Tell us that was a typo, go on.
You seem to be getting the terms morally wrong and unlawful confused. The halocaust was unlawful as is being a denier or an advocate for it. So that's punishable by law, whereas gay relationships can be viewed as being morally wrong but are not punishable by law. So my point is to use the halocaust as an example for something being morally wrong was silly as anything that is unlawful is also by definition of the state morally wrong too.
Canada, Japan, Mexico, the U.S. and the Holy See have observer status with the Council of Europe and can participate in the Committee of Ministers and all intergovernmental committees. They may contribute financially to the activities of the Council of Europe on a voluntary basis.
The holocaust was unlawful and punishable by law? What law? The law of Nazi Germany? What other law would govern the actions of government servants complying with the instructions of their government?
The State can define something as morally wrong by making it unlawful? So there is no such thing as an unjust law?
You seem to be seriously confused.
I have taken you to task for something that you declared in a very pompous manner above:
This remark reflects a naive positivist view of moral claims that seeks to diminish them to the status of exhortations that cannot be true or false.
By contrast, I think the claim: "the holocaust was morally wrong" is true regardless of anyone's opinion (and a fortiori regardless of any legal system).
If your problem is with the predicate "was morally wrong" to describe this, then you may substitute "was a bad thing" or "was evil". If you don't like the holocaust example, then substitute one of your own. How about "throwing a live human baby into an incinerator because the baby is Jewish is a bad thing". I think that is a true sentence, irrespective of any legal system and regardless of anyone's opinion.
Your comments really do amuse me, if you're not already a comedian then I think a career change is needed for yourself StupidDemon.
-'The holocaust was unlawful and punishable by law? What law?'
By international law. Ever heard of the Nuremberg Trials where prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany went before court for their crimes? There's now the International Criminal Court and the the International Court of Justice. Both courts are based in The Hague. A recent case was Slobodan Milošević who was on trial in the Hague because of his crimes in the former Yugoslavia. Why? Because his actions were unlawful just as the Halocaust was.
To say something is morally wrong while being illegal is just pointless. But to say something is morally wrong when still legal is subjective and based on opinion.
Now stop wasting my time and let me fly to the Sudan to commit murder in Darfur as the government allows it making it lawful in your books.
Now this is very interesting indeed, as it amounts to the doctrine that a sovereign State can be bound by instruments of international law to which it is not a State Party. In that case there is no question of withholding refugee status from anyone who has satisfied the criteria of the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, even if the State has not signed up to that Convention. That's excellent news!
It is likewise irrelevant that the USA has not ratified the Convention establishing the International Criminal Court, as its soldiers can be prosecuted for war crimes at that court anyway. The death penalty in the USA is illegal because the European Convention on Human Rights makes it so, even though the USA has not ratified that instrument – after all this is international law we are talking about. Likewise the practice of executing children, which is the stumbling block preventing the USA from ratifying the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, is illegal in the USA as well. This is great news. Let's arrest GW Bush when he next sets foot in Europe and march him off to Den Haag.
On the other hand, you could just admit that you have no idea what international law is or where it comes from.
In fact one of the key legal problems of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals was precisely the source of applicable law and the limits of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
One of the aims of law is to reflect and model a moral reality that is logically prior to law. This means that all (positive) law begins in moral discourse, which in turn means that moral discourse must be capable of reaching non-arbitrary conclusions.
Anyway you seem unable to defend your naive positivism about questions of right and wrong. I could recommend a primer on ethics that might give you a keener appreciation of what David Hume was really getting at with that remark about scratching his finger, but perhaps I won't bother.
Tuomas September 2nd, 2010
Almost nonexistent immigration and foreign population did not stop Japan from becoming the economic powerhouse it is today but, not unexpectedly, this policy has its weakness.
In fact it may prove to be the nation's downfall.
At present rate, without any immigration, Japan's population will fall from 125 million to under 100 million by 2050. Maintaining the worker-to-retiree ratio would mean raising the retirement age drastically or letting in some 10 million immigrants per year during that time.
Hi Tuomas, I am more convinced today that the basis of growth and propserty of a country hinges on its ability to attract immigrants and reap synergies from them. A good example is Argentina. Very generally, immigration ended from 1930 during the Great Depression. Also due to the military governments, the lack of significant immigration fuelled stagnation. If you stop the flow of immigrants to the United States it would have dire consequences on the country. Japan's policy of not attracting immigrants has led to its present sitation. Finland is also in danger of suffering the same consequences.
Greetings from London. I will not be filing too actively.
JusticeDemon September 2nd, 2010
I might add that the primacy of the moral order (and some recognition of the imperfection of a legal system in modelling that order) is recognised in the most famous point of Olaus Petri's judge's rules, as printed on the inside front cover of the Suomen Laki collection (and NOT to be confused with Judges' Rules in English law).
Mikä ei ole oikeus ja kohtuus, se ei saata olla lakikaan
This indicates that the moral order is complex and resists efforts at codification into a simple set of legal principles, much as the natural order resists attempts to formulate a simple set of scientific principles that explain all natural phenomena.
A scientific equivalent of the foregoing principle would tell you to adjust your course to reach your destination, even if your best theory tells you that your destination is half a parsec away from where you eventually find it.
Tony Garcia September 2nd, 2010
Tuomas, you hit the nail on the head. Mark Steyn points this brilliantly in his book, we are on the verge of a civilization exhaustion. Most of the western countries are not producing children enough to even keep the current numbers.
But there are four very important factors I want to point it out for you.
First – Immigration is not the only solution for that.
Second – No one is against immigration here, we're only against harmful immigration, basically illiterate Africans and Muslins terrorists.
Third – Quantity is not quality, as we have seen over and over, some groups will only take from social security rather than contribute to it, making the problem even bigger.
Four – As I always say here, it's all about choosing the lesser of two evils. I've been working and paying retirement for years, but if the only way (I said IF) for me to keep my retirement as it is, is opening the doors for Sharia, I can tell you with all honesty, I'm happy to work 10 years more and receive half of the current retirement pension.
Devastating consequences – real or myth? good or bad?
No one can deny that when fighting against terrorism no one knows it better than Israel. Surrounding by evil, Israel has been at the front line of a war that threatens not only the Jews, but all of us. They fight an enemy who hates not only them but also our values and customs, our freedom and democracy. This is not only theirs war but also ours.
Few years ago Israel decided that it has seen enough innocent blood from its children been spilled and decided to build a wall with would shield its population from terrorists.
The UN, its cartel of Islamic dictatorships and the usual lefties saw a perfect moment to disseminate their anti-Semitic venom and started the usual threats… International this… International that… Israel would suffer the consequences of it acts…
We know that for the left, the life of terrorist are more important than the life of our children, we have seen this here more than once, but were they wrong about Israel facing consequences? Maybe not…
Israel gave its children priority and after ignoring the UN started to build the wall. Today good part of the project is done and in operation along side profiling. So I ask, did this two measures, wall plus profiling, brought consequences? I'd say it did…
What was the chance of a Muslim blow a bus full of children in Israel before those measures? What is the chance now? So indeed it brought a huge consequence, it separated innocents Israelis from terrorists. The people today are safer than before. Isn't it that a huge consequence? Is that good or bad? Good for innocent children, bad for terrorists.
So the questions all of you should be asking before next election is – If Finland replace this reckless immigration policy for a wise one and start to use common sense rather than emotions when considering asylum applications, would that bring consequences? Good or bad?
Klay_Immigrant September 2nd, 2010
An example of the devastating effect of mass uncontrolled immigration and multiculturalism is the events that happened in London on the 7th of July 2005.
The London suicide underground bomb attacks that killed 52 people and around 700 were injured. The bombers were all Muslim, English born and English raised. But because of the racial and religious segregation of people especially in urban areas they might as well have been brought up in a village in Pakistan as they had no other interaction with anyone outside their close knit ghetto community.
Then you have the 21 July 2005 London bombings, the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, the 2006 Talbot Street bomb-making haul, the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, 2007 United Kingdom letter bombs, and the 2008 Exeter bombing. All the bombers or would be bombers share the same profiles as the first incident.
These 7 attacks have occurred just in the last 5 years involving only the UK. If that is not a message that something is seriously going wrong then how many more lives need to be spared until the message is sent.
Enrique September 3rd, 2010
I disagree with you that immigration to Europe is "mass uncontrolled" as you mention. What does "mass uncontrolled immigration" mean. Could you define it with facts and figures?
Who is condoning these attacks? I could also switch the question around and ask you about the hundreds of thousands that have died in Iraq alone because of a questionable invasion? How much money has that war brought to the war industries and fodder for your arguments? The world is not flat.
Klay_Immigrant September 3rd, 2010
– 'I could also switch the question around and ask you about the hundreds of thousands that have died in Iraq alone because of a questionable invasion? How much money has that war brought to the war industries and fodder for your arguments?'
As I've said before developed countries should never interfere with problems that are occurring in developing countries unless they are a direct threat to safety. So the West shouldn't take any refugees as well as not invade.
-'What does "mass uncontrolled immigration" mean. Could you define it with facts and figures?'
It's what it says on the tin. When the EU expanded in 2004 to countries such as Poland, in 6 years two and a half to three million people came into the UK from those countries. The government predicted only 13,000. Only the UK, Ireland and Sweden didn't put any restrictions on these countries. Since 2000, Spain has absorbed around six million immigrants, adding 10% to its population. So in hundred years the whole population would double at that rate just on immigrants alone. Is that healthy?
Proof that immigrants are overrepresented on crime.
In Germany, the conviction rates of foreigners (out 8.8% immigrant population) in Germany were as follows (as of 2006).
Homicide 24.7%, battery 23.9%, rape 29.7%, theft 20.9%, robbery/extortion 28.8%. Remember these stats don't include German citizens with immigrant background, otherwise the percentages would be much higher.
Immigrants are overrepresented in Sweden's crime statistics. During the period 1997-2001, 25% of the almost 1,520,000 offences were committed by people born abroad, while almost 20% were committed by Swedish-born people with a foreign background. The immigrant population was only 7% at the time.
In Switzerland, 69.7% of prison population had no Swiss citizenship, compared to 22.1% of total resident population (as of 2008).
I can go on and on for different countries but my point has been made and those stats cannot be argued against as they are facts.
xyz September 3rd, 2010
You forgot one thing. There are many Turkish and Polish people who consider moving back to their home countries. In Germany the outflow of people having a Turkish background is higher than the inflow.
Concerning Switzerland, read this if you understand German:
http://substanz.skroll.ch/?p=1858
Only 59% of those who are in prison actually commited a crime. There are many foreigners in prison who do not even live in Switzerland (Criminal Tourists).
Sweden:
"…offences committed by persons not registered as resident in Sweden are also included. This group is estimated to account for seven per cent of the offences reported during the study period."
"In addition, those moving to Sweden from these areas have often been "forced" to leave their homelands as refugees, whereas those arriving from western countries most often come more of their own free will."
"A large number of studies have shown that as a group, persons born abroad have poorer social opportunities and a worse social situation than the average Swede. This is the case in relation to education, for example, work, income, housing and physical and mental health. These factors generally affect the risk for involvement in crime."
"Widespread prejudices about groups of immigrants
contribute to public sector agencies and various institutions sometimes subjecting immigrant groups to a structural negative discrimination (This is perhaps made most visible in the research focusing on the situation of immigrants on the labour market."
"Prejudice may also serve as a contributory explanation for the increasingly marked level of ethnic residential segregation, however. In certain areas, this has reached a point where families, children and youths born outside Sweden hardly ever meet and talk to persons who do not themselves have a non-Swedish background. This segregation involves a risk for the intensification of an "us and them" perspective, which will worsen the possibilities for immigrants to integrate in Sweden and to feel a sense of solidarity in relation to Swedish society. Particularly among youths, these factors are likely to involve an increased risk for crime."
http://www.bra.se/extra/measurepoint/?module_instance=4&name=ENGSUMMARY.pdf&url=/dynamaster/file_archive/051214/60257a9f34f07207c56544c72654e44b/ENGSUMMARY.pdf
german_immigrant..-:) September 3rd, 2010
Hello All from Helsinki area –
just for your information – sept. 21st there is a meeting.. for people with an immigration background in Helsinki at the Pohjoisesplanadi 11-13 at the banquette hall of the town hall between 6.30pm – 8.30pm – the invitation comes from the Helsinki Mayor. Have no idea, if we will meet this anti-immigration hardliners or it is just the usual – soft chat –
if you need further information or you have questions pls send them to [email protected] –
all the best – kdrgds
Enrique September 5th, 2010
Hi german_immigrant..-:), thank you for the heads up and welcome to Migrant Tales. We hope that you can participate in our debate over immigration. Thank you for dropping by.
Tuomas September 3rd, 2010
"As I always say here, it's all about choosing the lesser of two evils. I've been working and paying retirement for years, but if the only way (I said IF) for me to keep my retirement as it is, is opening the doors for Sharia, I can tell you with all honesty, I'm happy to work 10 years more and receive half of the current retirement pension."
I'll continue the small sidetrack into Japan's immigration situation since, amusingly, this kind of attitude is common there also: "On accepting immigrants to maintain economic vitality, only 26 percent supported such a move, while 65 percent opposed."
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201006110455.html
It's the attitudes like this that actually weaken the nation in many ways. Call me lazy if you will but my personal choice would be attracting even more immigrants if that means I don't have to keep working until my back breaks.
"I am more convinced today that the basis of growth and propserty of a country hinges on its ability to attract immigrants and reap synergies from them."
I don't totally agree with you here. Countries like
Japan, Finland and several other managed great growth and high standards of living during 20th century without large scale immigration. I
personally don't think that immigration is the recipe to success all the time and for everyone, or
that we should encourage large population growth
either domestically or globally.
That said, one must acknowledge that attracting more immigrants is the best and obvious solution for keeping Finnish economy viable in the future.
–Call me lazy if you will but my personal choice would be attracting even more immigrants if that means I don't have to keep working until my back breaks.
Hi Tuomas, there is nothing "crazy" about your suggestion. Those societies that don't have hang ups with the Other are the best suited to face and expand in the future. Having problems with relating to the Other is like living in a dysfunctional family. Everything is messed up because we are messed up.
Japan is a good example of how a society may reach a stage where its demographic realities turn against it. Finland is in danger of following the same path. The assumption that hordes will come to Finland is unfounded and a populist ploy by xenophobic parties to inject fear with the only short-term goal of getting votes in the next elections.
JusticeDemon September 3rd, 2010
Klay_Immigrant, September 3, 2010 at 8:52 am
As pointed out before, 100 per cent of serious economic crimes in Finland are committed by Finnish citizens. It follows that Finnish citizens are not fit to serve as bank managers.
Can you see what is wrong with that argument?
The same objection applies to your crime statistics.
-'100 per cent of serious economic crimes in Finland are committed by Finnish citizens.'
So no immigrant has ever committed a serious crime in Finland. Don't be so ridiculous. You really are in denial. The equivalent would be for me to say every immigrant is a criminal.
Congolese immigrants gang raped a Finnish woman in Oulu, they made fistula on her using scissors in the Congo fashion, clipping up the skin between anal and vaginal openings, which means she will have to wear diapers if they can't fix it with surgery (and in many cases, it's impossible to fix it, many victims of this attack in Congo had to use colostomy bags for the rest of their life.
Furthermore, they raped 2 other women in the same Finnish city, they targeted single women at bus stops, hit them in the head with a hard object and dragged them somewhere to rape them. The other women were lucky enough to be just raped, not permanently mutilated.
But maybe you don't consider that a serious crime StupidDemon. I'm starting to think you are playing games with me by being so ignorant.
Tony Garcia September 4th, 2010
Finland has a high number of coronary heart disease, juts in the disturbed and intellectually confused mind of the left this is reason to start importing yellow fever.
xyz September 4th, 2010
by coincidence the person who sits next to me in my office is from Congo. I don't suffer from yellow fever yet 🙂
JusticeDemon September 4th, 2010
Klay_Immigrant
Time to clean the clay out from between your ears and read what I wrote again. 100 per cent of serious economic crimes committed in Finland are committed by Finnish citizens. Such offences concern six-figure sums, and include things like grand embezzlement, serious insider trading and defrauding of creditors in bankruptcy.
From this it follows by your reasoning that Finnish citizens are not fit to serve as bank managers. Obviously only foreigners can be trusted, because no foreigner has ever committed a serious economic offence in Finland. Not even once. Not in the entire history of independent Finland. Our money will obviously be safer if only foreigners are hired as bank managers. Those stats cannot be argued against as they are facts.
If you can see the flaw in that reasoning, then you might also see how your German "statistics" were flawed.
But I won't hold my breath waiting for you to spot the fallacy, as you can't even understand the word economic in a simple sentence.
Klay_Immigrant September 4th, 2010
Here's the major flaw in your argument. When you discuss a certain type of crime that only a small minority of the population are able to commit then that doesn't reflect any trends. Intent or potential cannot be measured in crime. For instance if a refugee was in a bank manager's position you don't know if he/she would commit serious economic fraud as it's impossible to tell as they are not in that position.
Whereas crimes such as murder, rape, theft etc. anyone can commit regardless of nationality, status, education or wealth. No need to include intent or potential. The same cannot be said for serious economic crimes.
If let's say 99.9% of bank managers are Finns and 100% of serious economic crimes have been committed by Finns that's not proving anything. The percenatges of the number of the Finns in those positions and crime commited will always be so close and there are so few immigrants in those positions. If the same applied to immigrants and crimes where anyone can commit then I wouldn't have a problem but usually the percentage convicted is at least 3 times the percentage of population as I've shown without including citizens of immigrant background.
Crimes stats that are able to be committed by anyone are more accurate than speicalised crimes such as serious economic fraud only able to be committed by a select few for the obvious reason as there are simply so many more of them.
So you agree that statistics on the criminal criminal convictions of a population group have to be weighted according to the demographic features of that population group? It's wrong to draw conclusions from the massive over-representation of Finnish citizens in conviction rates for serious economic crimes, because Finnish citizens are already over-represented in the population group that is able to or more likely to commit such offences.
In that case you must explain precisely how you weighted those German statistics to compensate for demographic differences between foreigners and citizens. Did you allow for the age profile of foreigners in Germany compared to the age profile of the country as a whole? To do that, you would have to take conviction rates weighted by the age of offenders.
The age band that most concerns us is the band between the time of arrival and the time of naturalisation, as it is only during this period that an immigrant will be a foreigner. In the case of migrant workers, that band is roughly age 21-35. This age band is by far the largest in the foreign population. To compare like with like, you must at least confine the native reference group to the same age band. Are German citizens in this age band more or less likely on average to commit the offences in question?
A similar weighting is also necessary by the gender profile of a population group in the case of offences that are gender-related (as most crimes of violence are). Unlike the native population in the relevant age band, the foreign population is very predominantly male. How did you allow for this difference?
This is not rocket science. Most of the offenders convicted of crimes of violence in Aberdeen over the last 20 years of the 20th century were oil rig service workers, but this is not because the oil industry makes people violent. It's because that industry specifically employed young male adults for a certain type of work and brought them to Aberdeen. Young male adults are specifically more prone than other demographic groups to commit violent crimes, so naturally the incidence of these particular offences increased. It would have increased even if oil rig service workers were better behaved on average than local Aberdonians, simply because of the impact of age and gender.
The point is that offences are not, in fact, committed by anyone. When did you last hear of a geriatric convicted of assault and battery? Criminal conviction statistics reflect clear demographic and social patterns. To make them meaningful, you must weight those statistics for the effects of these patterns.
Based on your track record in this thread and more generally, I won't be surprised if you didn't follow this, but at least you recognised the basic need to compare like with like.
Hannu September 4th, 2010
About "there is so many youngs among immigrants."
http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/59/hs20081230vx5.jpg
Hannu, September 4, 2010 at 11:37 pm
That comment from a professional social scientist makes essentially the same point about the impact of demographic characteristics on the comparability of statistics for population group samples.
The other factors referred to in the last paragraph might include gender balance, as I noted above, and the use of excessive force in self-defence. I would surmise that visible minorities are substantially over-represented in convictions with an element of hätävarjelun liioittelu simply because members of these minorities are far more likely to wind up in situations where self-defence is necessary.
Another point, Hannu: If you seek criminals among a certain group you will find them. What about racial profiling? We will look especially close at this group but turn a blind eye on another one. A serious student of society would attempt to get find some causes of such crimes. Here is a good column in Center Party Verkkoapila that caught my eye: http://www.verkkoapila.fi/opencms/opencms/apila/opinions/columns/0374.html
Yes it is same but did you notice that overpresentation didnt go away even after fix…
We agree on the need to weight statistics in order to achieve comparability. The inability of Klay_Immigrant to see this rather obvious point gives the lie to his claim to be a postgraduate science student.
The next question is to decide which weightings are necessary in each case. Age and gender are obvious candidates, and I also pointed out that visible minorities will have an abnormally high rate of hätävarjelun liioittelu. The professor points out the need for various additional weightings in the last paragraph:
On lukuisia asioita, joiden mukaan ottaminen todennäköisesti tasoittaisi numeroita.
This is not a new debate. The question of proper statistical weighting was done to death in Sweden in the 1970s when some commentators tried to draw political capital from the allegedly high rate of violent crimes committed by Finnish immigrants.
I'm having a difficult time trying to associate rape, robbery and terrorism with self-defense. But hey… that's just Tony, don't bother with him…
One point that hasn't been taken into account is that immigrants especially from 3rd World countries have a higher birth rate than Finns. Therefore a higher percentage of the immigrant population would be children (under the age of 18) and ineligible to be included in crime statistics.
It's obvious if a group of people are at a lower economic status then they are more likely to commit crime of a violent nature. The majority of immigrants from 3rd World countries fall into that category.
-'I would surmise that visible minorities are substantially over-represented in convictions with an element of hätävarjelun liioittelu simply because members of these minorities are far more likely to wind up in situations where self-defence is necessary.'
As Tony has stated it seems you are justifying crimes committed by immigrants. There is no excuse for criminal behaviour no matter who are or what situation you are in. Since I'm a visible minority, if I ever indulge in illegal activity and get caught remind me to shout 'cos I is black'.
JusticeDemon you behave like defence attorneys who know their clients are guilty as charged but try their utmost power to deceive the jury/judge to release them. I guess they are just doing their job but what's your excuse unless you want multiculturalism at all costs.
By the way no need to be jealous that I have a higher education level than yourself.
Use of excessive force in self-defence generally relates to crimes of violence. The most common example is giving a black eye to a Finnish thug who initially set out to commit racially motivated battery, but it may also include a kick in the groin when some Finnish thug attempts to act on the view that all Russian women are prostitutes by helping himself either to the assumed wares (i.e. attempted rape/sexual assault) or to the assumed proceeds (i.e. attempted robbery).
The degree of force that a person may use in self-defence is a recurrent theme in civil rights training for members of visible minorities.
"Very often the members of the in-group form generalizations and stereotypes of the out-groups. Moreover, the picture that the members of the in-group form about the values and intentions of the out-group is not always correct."
"Certain people were prejudiced because their prejudices meet certain needs deriving from their personality. According to this theory, authoritarianism is a personality construct deriving from a person's childhood, especially in strongly disciplinarian families. In adulthood, the possessor of an authoritarian personality has a high amount of pent-up anger which, because of basic insecurity, manifests itself in a displaced aggression against powerless groups."
"Authoritarianism is nothing more than simply an old fashioned orientation, which correlates strongly with racial prejudice. Moreover, as authoritarianism is a learned and not a genetic characteristic, it can easily be related to value priorities. Recent studies have shown that authoritarianism correlates strongly with security, conformity and traditional value priorities."
"Contact between groups reduces intergroup prejudice, i.e. the more the members of the in-group are in contact and personally know members of the out-group, the less prejudice they show."
"Few Finns are worried about immigration undermining Finland's cultural life. Only five percent of the Finnish population agree with this statement."
"Generally, it can be said that the less educated a person is, the more rightist political opinions he or she holds, the more authoritarian personality characteristics he or she has and the less satisfied with his or her economic situation he or she is, the more negative a stance he or she holds about receiving immigrants in his or her country."
http://www.vaestoliitto.fi/@Bin/357809/YB+04_Ervasti_25-44.pdf
(Published by the Department of Social Policy
University of Turku)
-'The degree of force that a person may use in self-defence is a recurrent theme in civil rights training for members of visible minorities.'
It's a shame when it comes down this teaching visible minorities how to act in unfavourable situations. Should be common sense as I myself have encountered aggression in this manner and didn't have to resort to excessive self-defence. It seems that even basic human behaviour and decision making has to be taught to visible minorities and this reflects badly those where that is not needed such as myself.
Klay_Immigrant, September 5, 2010 at 5:00 pm
The difference between our educational levels is more clearly evidenced in that you feel the need to express your own because you think it adds credence to what you say. This argumentum ad verecundiam already diminishes your own standing. Your failure to understand a very simple point about statistical comparability did likewise, as I pointed out. On the other hand, you seem to have grasped the point now, so let's move on.
As a member of a visible minority, you may be attacked in the street by some racist thug. It is only in such circumstances that the possibility of hätävarjelun liioitelu arises. This is the same point that you have already conceded in relation to serious economic offences. If the statistics on serious economic crimes have to weighted according to the propensity of members of a population group to be in a position to commit such an offence, then we must similarly weight the statistics on crimes of violence to exclude those in which a conviction is based on a judgement of hätävarjelun liioitelu. Members of visible minorities are more likely to commit such offences for the same reason that Finnish citizens are more likely to commit serious economic crimes: because they are disproportionately placed in a position in which such an offence is possible.
If you are attacked in the street because of your immigrant background and you are subsequently charged with assault because you broke the nose of your assailant, then your lawyer will correctly and properly argue that your action was justifiable self-defence. Your lawyer should also, again correctly and properly, point out that the conditions for the offence were created by an unprovoked racially motivated attack. If that attack had not occurred, then your offence would not have occurred either.
Are you saying that you would instruct your lawyer NOT to point this out, even when you are sure that you were attacked simply for looking different (e.g. by some thug yelling helvetin mutakuono!)? If so, then you would create an ethical dilemma that might cause your lawyer to withdraw from the case or to ignore your instructions.
The court may nevertheless hold that as your legs were not broken, you could have run away instead of hitting back at the thug who broke your nose, and that your self-defence therefore involved the use of excessive force. You would then get a conviction for petty or aggravated assault. I know quite a few black people with convictions of precisely this kind.
My point is that such a conviction is only statistically relevant in the context of convictions involving the use of excessive force in self-defence against a racially motivated attack. Members of visible minorities are disproportionately over-represented in this specific category of offender.
I'm not sure how or why you concluded that socio-economic status is statistically linked to crimes of violence, still less why you regard this as obvious, but it is possible to weight statistics on criminal convictions by socio-economic situation. I suppose the likelihood of getting involved in street fights is reduced if you travel around in a chauffeur-driven limousine.
When you open the door to people who are used to settle disputes using an AK 47 or show their disagreement with their neighbors by detonating an explosive belt, you'll, undoubtedly, have a enormous rise in violent crimes.
A small example of what I'm saying…
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x81vlo_brigitte-gabriel-on-saudi-education_news
Tony, could you tell us who are the people behind dailymotion.com?
Klay, you are an educated, coherent and I guess successful non-white immigrant, and I do respect your opinions. So let me ask you a question.
What do you think about positive discrimination?
Start with ramps enabling disabled access to public buildings. Why should we spend taxpayers' money subsidising this unequal treatment?
Thank you Tony, I appreciate your kind words.
Positive discrimination is a policy based on racial prejudice. So in essence it's a racist policy no better than those of the same nature implemented in South Africa under apartheid. But because we live in a media driven world controlled by leftist liberals, being racist against the ethnic majority is seen as being progressive whereas against the ethnic minority you will end up with a criminal record. If that is not double standards then I don't know what is.
Positive discrimination should be outlawed. A position should go to the person with the best suited education, skills, language etc. and not someone who hasn't got those attributes but is from an ethnic minority. If I got a job I would want it to be because of what I had to offer and have achieved not because I'm from a mixed (black and white) ethnic background. The same logic applies to women, I wouldn't want a lady who aspires to be with me just bacause of my ethnic makeup but unfortunately there are plenty of those and I believe the term we use in the U.K. for women who display such actions are 'hood rats'.
I hope that answers your question Tony.
Have no idea, but why does it matter? The video is from fox news.
BTW, few month ago I posted, especially for you, a video from Mairead Nesbitt playing fiddle. You liked it very much and thanked me, do you remember? That video was also from dailymotion…
Thanks Klay you answer was brilliant. You remind me a black American who I used to work with when I was in Nokia. He used to say that if someone offered him a job just because he was black, he would, very respectfully of course, suggest to that person that he/she should kiss his ass. Needless to say he's a another very successfully immigrant and a good friend of mine.
What drives me crazy is lefties trying to "help" us. The problem is that, apart of Enrique, some immigrants writing here only got where they are by manipulating loopholes in the law. If they just knew how invigorating and rewarding is to know that you have achieved something by your own merit, that you are where you are because you deserve it. That's why, sometimes, I get disappointed with Enrique, he's another example of success by merit and effort but yet let himself fall for the left's rhetoric.
Sorry Enrique, you are a good example of "do as he did, not as he says".
Klay, Finland needs more immigrants like you mate, and I can guarantee that you'll be far more welcome there than most people here wants you to believe.
Thanks Tony, in a few years time I hope to eventually settle in Finland for many reasons. I just wish Finland doesn't end up like Sweden in terms of multiculturalism. If I believed everything I have read in this blog then I predict I'll get spat at in interviews and booted out of the office literally for being a foreigner.
One thing I've learned is that ethnic minorities are usually never happy no matter what the host country does. Even in the U.K. with some of the most liberal immigration policies a large percentage of ethnic minorities call English people racist and I know they couldn't be further from the truth.
–If I believed everything I have read in this blog then I predict I'll get spat at in interviews and booted out of the office literally for being a foreigner.
I think you are exaggerating your case. Moreover, this blog is not a dictatorship. People can read your comments and mine and decide for themselves.
Take a look at paragraph 4 of Article 1 of this Convention, to which Finland is a State Party.
Why is it wrong to allocate resources in order to compensate for a proven handicap related to one aspect of biological origin (skin colour) but not another (e.g. muscular dystrophy, retinitis pigmentosa, downs syndrome, spina bifida ). How can we spend money on things like access ramps and special employment programmes for victims of the latter handicap, but not the former?
Good point, JusticeDemon!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev51_dj3vRw&fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0]
–"I smoke more than Auschwitz chimmeny."
Pretty incredible statment at a BNP rally.
I didn't know being a non-white person is a handicap in life. That's news to me especially as the most powerful man in the world is non-white.
Are you afraid of a little competition. Does levelling out the playing field put you at a disadvantage?
Nick Griffin leader of the BNP JusticeDemon. Your point? A large percentage of people who actually vote for the BNP would never want them to get into power but they are so frustrated at the main parties that they view their vote as sending a message to them to re-think their policies on immigration.
Completely irrelevant question but Finnish girls? Yes or no and why?
You will find it more difficult to get invited for interviews in the first place. Even a foreign-sounding name may count against you. Some employers will not bother to respond to your CV because of the colour and shape of your face. These points can and have been tested empirically: simply send out two CVs to one hundred employers with identical qualifications and experience, one in the name Matti Virtanen with a photograph of a typical Finnish Jussi and the other in the name Momodou Ceesay with a photograph of a Gambian diplomat. Count the number of responses received to each application.
If you get to the interview, then you will have to be substantially better qualified than your Finnish competitors. You will also find that the weighting of various eligibility factors changes massively to favour your competitors. In other words, if your academic record outweighs that of your competitor, then this will matter less than the extra month of voluntary work experience that your competitor has. You inability to speak fluent colloquial Finnish will outweigh your years of experience successfully doing the job in Finland. Don't be surprised if you lose out to a school leaver for this reason.
If you get the job, then you will find a series of glass ceilings obstructing your subsequent promotion, and if you so much as query this concerted practice, then you will be labelled unco-operative and suddenly your lack of teamwork skills and your inability to focus on the big picture will be given as reasons why you are unsuitable for a more responsible position.
Now even the Greens? I love election time…
http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2010/09/haavisto_somaleita_tulisi_auttaa_lahtomaassa_1957056.html
Yes, Tony, elections make strange bedfellows. Haavisto's statement is an example of how the Greens are becoming concerned over the ever-growing populism and xenophobia that has gripped Finland. During these times, real leaders don't jump on the populist bandwagon but stand their ground. Barack Obama was one of the few that did not vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq. It does not matter whether a True Finn heads Finland's immigration affairs because you can find similar people in the big parties like the Social Democrats. Does anyone remember Jarmo Rantanen and Kari Rajamäki? Both of these "socialists" could well be True Finns without any problem with respect to their views on immigration policy.
"It does not matter whether a True Finn heads Finland's immigration affairs because you can find similar people in the big parties like Social Democrats."
Absolutely my friend. That's why we don't need True Finns to get in power, if enough get elected the main parties will start closing the doors.
"Barack Obama was one of the few that did not vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq."
Yes, but he did "explain" what he "meant" when he talked about the ground-zero mosque, didn't he?
"During these times, real leaders don't jump on the populist bandwagon but stand their ground."
Interesting… Quick question, do you think Finland should be a country with government or a government with a country?
Hello Tony,
What's the ground-zero mosque?
Is it by any chance a project that is (a) not at ground-zero and (b) not a mosque?
I understand how the dimwit USAmericans that want to bomb Saskatchewan and think that Obama is a Moslem might swallow this, but how can YOU be taken in by such drivel?
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Library+in+Espoo+sets+aside+prayer+space+for+Muslims/1135259931717
"Nikulainen says that more than half of the regular customers of the Entresse library are of Somali background."
We have to admit when something is right, the library is just catering its services based on its customers.
Now I wonder, when will the library in Kangasala start to hang crucifixes on the wall…
Tony that is a loaded question: Go to church.
Tony you are like a small baby. If they don't do it then we should also not do it. If all people would think like you then we would still live in caves. What's the problem with a prayer room? If you don't like it you don't have to use it.
xyz, maybe we should ask Tony why it bothers him so much to have a prayer room for Mulsims?
Yeah I don't understand it? On Airports you can also find Prayers rooms. I don't see any point in making it hard for others to live somewhere. If there are plenty of Buddhists in Espoo then they could also build a Buddhist Temple there. Honestly, who cares? You can also keep it looking neutral from outside if it's such a big issue.
Dear Enrique, would you have the same opinion if the subject was the publication of Mohammed cartoons, or the screening of the movie Submission, or the South Park's Mohammed episode? You'd you say, if you don't like it, just don't watch it?
Tony, I would advice you to meet some people of those cultures you don't like and start talking with them. You will maybe realize that not everybody is a fundamentalist running around with a bomb on his belly.
Sorry but now I'm puzzled. If you don't have problems with Islamic pray rooms in libraries why do you have with crucifies?
OK, Tony, go and apply for a prayer room for Catholics. Good luck. Moreover, what is the big deal? If it isn't a problem don't turn it into one.
One last thing: When we live in a society with different cultures we also SHARE public spaces. Do I have an issue with that? No. Do you? Maybe.
Nobody has problems with it. But where do you see the point to put crucifies there if there are churches around there? (Suppose that there is no Mosque in this area).
No one can say that it's not fun writing to this blog…
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Minority+Ombudsman+to+examine+gym+locker+room+prayer+ban/1135259572518
"She also notes that there is a mosque 500 metres away."
Enrique you are unbelievable with your hypocritical comments. So instead of hanging crucifixes you say Christians should go to a church but instead of praying rooms in libraries you don't tell Muslims they should go to a Mosque? Wow double standards indeed, you never apply the same rule to everyone in most of your arguments.
–Enrique you are unbelievable with your hypocritical comments.
Do you have to get personal? What about if I told you that it must be really difficult to live in a world if you have such issues with people from other cultures. You are the one in agony, not me. Why? Because anything you do will not change anything. Do you want a "culprit?" Why not look at globalization. Do you want to do away with globalization? Read Don Quijote.
It is a fact of life that people move around and societies become more diverse. Some people have deep issues about that. I feel for them because their lives must be miserable. It is like being constantly unhappy. Lighten up and flow with the tide. You'll live longer.
"It is a fact of life that people move around and societies are diverse."
True, but once we have rules against Christians symbols inside public buildings we should also have against Islamic Symbols. We don't want people start beveling that Muslims have more rights than Christians, do we? Especially in these pre-election times…
And, to my knowledge, that's called share public spaces.
BTW, My family and I had a very lovely, happy and absolutely non-miserable summer, surrounded by westerns friends, cocking very nice barbeques and drinking ice-cold Brazilian beer.
–We don't want people start beveling that Muslims have more rights than Christians, do we?
Do you really think that Muslims have in post-invasion Iraq and Afghanistan more rights than Christians?
I am happy you had a nice holiday with your family.
Which Islamic symbols bother you, Tony? Do you know which compulsory symbols must be displayed in order to make a room into a fit place of Islamic prayer?
I am completely certain that you don't know any such symbols, so how can you claim to be bothered by them?
Enrique can you please tell me what is the aim of this blog and what changes would you like to happen in Finland?
I want it to be a forum where we can speak openly about immigration and societal matters that affect us. Immigrants are speaking as well as Finns. One of these is exclusion from opportunities. I would like Finland to be a society that would be more accepting of immigrants and where everyone who lives here can seek the Finnish dream, which is nothing more than improving ones life from what it was before. Everyone that comes to this country should feel Finland as a place where they can contribute and be part of society, where racisms is a shameful matter. At present, we are, sadly, faraway from such a goal but moving ahead anyway.
I also want experiences that alien suffered never to happen in this country. I don't want police authorities like Supo, lazy civil servants, the police, and especially opportunistic politicians to take advantage and abuse others because they are from somewhere else.
trick one…
Right to discriminate against women and homosexuals.
Right to call Christians monkeys and Jews pigs.
Right to their own swimming times.
Right to compensation for discrimination when dismissed from work even if it was a fair dismissal.
Right to have their children breaking school uniform dress code.
Right to wear Islamic garments where Christians are forbidden.
Right to change mixed gym classes to boys/girls only.
Right to have Christmas celebrations renamed or cancelled from their workplace.
Right to have Christians celebrations cancelled from the schools where their children goes.
Right for Muslims bus and taxi drivers to refuse serving blind people with guide dogs.
Right to bomb a bus full of children and have their families taken care of by the tax money from the parents of those same children.
Right to riot on our streets and have the left telling them that it's our fault.
Right to have especial work ours to fit their prayer times.
Right to decide where they want to pray and demand the place to accommodate them.
Right to have a Muslim police officer dealing with their case.
Right to demand a non-Muslim female police officers to wear a head-scarf when entering a mosque.
Right to employ Muslim only in their business.
Right to bring the two towers down, kill 3000 people, have a mosque built on the site and have the whole left celebrating it.
Let me see…. Nah… you are right, they don't have more rights then we. This is just my confused mind, don't bother with it…
Have you ever been to Iraq or any other Muslim country?
There are certain things which I also disagree in Islamic countries however to give you an example I have worked in the Arab Emirates even so I am not a Muslim. My friend is working in Kuwait (she has a high position there and she is also not Muslim). There are over 900 Finns working in the Arab Emirates by the way.
Thanks Enrique, but unfortunately I didn't have any holidays. I had to work throughout the summer, my family went to Finland for 4 weeks, and my son played violin at Pori jazz. We supposed to be moving to Finland now but I got delayed with an extra project, so I guess it'll be on January, we had even a nice house arranged in Kangasala, my favorite kunta, where we were leaving when my son was born. The stat.fi says that Kangasala has the lowest ratio Finnish speaking/non-Finnish speaking around Tampere, so that's the place.
Nevertheless, we still had a wonderful summer, the same goes for all the summers we had in Finland, do you know why? Because I had followed your steps, although I didn't know you at that time.
Once you told me, "When I moved to Finland I decided to live a Finnish life to the fullest" (or something close to that). It worked for you, for me, for Willy, for Martin, and many others.
Now let me ask you a question. What kind of summer do you think a Somali living in Finland, who didn't follow your steps but listened to what you are saying and decided to be just as different than anybody else as his Imam, from Saudi Arabia, tells him to be, had?
Enrique, what is your opinion, as a journalist, about Westergaard (the cartoonist who portrayed Mohammed wearing a bomb in his turban) winning the M100 Media Prize in Germany?
The committee says…
"The prize is to be awarded for Westergaard's unbending engagement for freedom of the press and freedom of opinion, and for his courage to defend these democratic values despite threats of death and violence."
Do you agree with them?
-"The prize is to be awarded for Westergaard's unbending engagement for freedom of the press and freedom of opinion, and for his courage to defend these democratic values despite threats of death and violence."
I personally have seen what censorship and self-censorship can do to a country. However, I am not talking about countries like Denmark where there IS ample freedom of speech. Why haven't these cases come out into the public light (maybe they have) in the United States in the way that it shocked Denmark and Europe? Denmark is, in my opinion, a country like the European continent with a lot of racial issues. Look at the Danish immigration law which has been changed many times. They even recently tried to take away social benefits from Nordic citizens that were entitled to them.
Even though Denmark has been gripped by a nasty case of xenophobia and Islamophobia, it does not mean that there should be censorship or self-censorship of the media. Even if the cartoonist has the right to publish his drawings, I don't understand how it furthers freedom of speech in a country like Denmark by arousing hatred. There has to be balance as well. I also believe that there are a lot of opportunists out there that are taking advantage of the situation.
Instead of hitting below the religious belt by defaming a figure like Mohammed, why not move to the big league and speak out against human rights violations which are carried out in many Western-leaning countries like Egypt and other more conservative ones like Saudi Arabia with the silent blessing of the developed world?
Would we be having this discussion if 9/11 did not happen or if George W. Bush wouldn't have declared war on the whole Muslim world? If we'd live in the 1940s the groups you are speaking of would be substituted for the Nazis. Countries need enemies. It is good for short-term national unity and does wonders for the military.
The stuff about a mosque on the WTC site is a lie. You know it's a lie. Why do you keep repeating it?
A question to all.
Do you predict in 50 years in that Finland will have the same level of immigrants or citizens with immigrant background as present day U.K., France or even Sweden?
Some experts in the field see Finland´s immigrant population reaching about 8% by 2040.
And if not in 50 years time, then how long (if ever)?
Depends, if you want to immigrate from the UK to Finland then the number is going to increase 🙂
Please define "citizen with immigrant background". Do you include foreigners born in Finland who were naturalised when their parents were granted citizenship? Do you include the children of Finnish emigrants who entered Finland as foreigners but gained citizenship by declaration? Do you equate the "immigrant background" of a third-generation Swedish-speaking Somali Finn with that of a third-generation Swedish-speaking Swedish Finn? Do you include third generation immigrants from Russia who have Finnicised their names and only speak Russian in private?
Or do you just mean black?
-'Please define "citizen with immigrant background".'
Somebody who has at least one parent who was born abroad.
Klay: I don't understand why you are asking this question? You said yourself that you have lived in plenty of countries. So why is it so important for you?
I'm just curious xyz, immigrant population will increase in most European countries with time, but some will increase at a faster rate than others, so I was just wondering where Finland lies.
I don't know but since people travel nowadays much more than in old times there will be more and more immigrants. That's for sure.
There were 250,000 second-generation Finnish immigrants living in Sweden in 1996. It's not clear what is achieved by describing their children as of immigrant background when they move from Haparanda to Tornio or from Umeå to Vaasa. Increasing international mobility is also leading increasingly to situations in which Finnish citizens have one parent born abroad but four grandparents born in Finland, and absolutely no personal idea of their alleged immigrant background. Much the same can be said of the children of accommodating young men in Mediterranean resorts.
In any case, as we don't yet have the details of where our parents were born tattooed on our foreheads, it's hard to see how the immigrant background category is in any way useful. Currently it seems to be a euphemism for black in the broad sociological sense. If I read in a newspaper that the winner of an award for industry is of immigrant background, I don't automatically assume that the winner had one parent born into an emigre Finnish family in Sweden.
JusticeDemon, those that are pushing these funny labels are people who are sedentary. They love to put these funny labels such as a person of immigrant background as much as classifying people into different ethnic groups.
Enrique, thanks for your answer. Let me quote you…
"…it does not mean that there should be censorship or self-censorship of the media."
"I am it to be a forum where we can speak openly about immigration and societal matters that affect us."
One thing I have always given you credit for is your commitment to free speech and open debate, your blog is a proof of that. but something troubles me…
You have open space to all sort of opinions in your blog, from both sides of the aisle… pro, critic and extra-critic comments about immigration has been allowed here, however you get very upset when a newspaper does the same, why is that?
The more opinions the merrier. If I claim to be able to live in a society made up of different cultures, the least expected of me is to be open to different points of view. By debating we can learn from each other. I have learned a lot from this blog.
I get upset with the editorial line of a newspaper because I think they should know better. Do you know how much damage a person like Social Democrat MP Eero Heinäluoma does to immigrants in Finland when he claims that foreign workers are to blame for racism because they take jobs away from Finns? The newspapers print his statements, which is correct, but some do not say anything about what his affirmations imply for society.
You are dead right, however that'd go against one of the fundamental pillars of multiculturalism – cultural relativism. You said yourself here many times that we shouldn't judge then because we don't understand their culture.
I take from your answer that you were also outraged but the exposition where a crucifix has been put inside a jar of urine, am I right?
Tony, I have seen so many things in my life that little can outrage or shock me.
Is cultural relativism a fundamental pillar of multiculturalism? That is debatable. Cultural relativism was conceived in the early twentieth century by Franz Boas. It was an answer to the "armchair anthropologists" who never left their studies to investigate other cultures. You actually had "experts" studying groups they never met. Cultural relativism had probably its heyday in the 1970s. It does not and should not mean that we accept everything like genocide as cultural relativism. How accepting a society is of other cultures depends on where that culture is; ie Saudi Arabia versus Sweden.
As I understand it, in a multicutlural society (demographically speaking with western democratic liberal rights) all cultures should take a step back. In the open space they leave in between them there must be an imporant plant: acceptance. Acceptance is the first crucial step to building good relations with people from different cultures. It is a two-way street. However, we cannot impose this on anyone because our society is based on choice. We have options. We do not live in a dictatorship.
But what is the difference between he saying it to a paper or to a blog? Don't you think that in our society the internet media is getting more audience than the printed one?
"Do you know how much damage a person like Social Democrat MP Eero Heinäluoma does to immigrants…"
"… but some do not say anything about what his affirmations imply for society."
These are yours and others opinions but how about if the paper's editor doesn't share it? You always say that politicians are using immigration for political gain, maybe some, but have you even consider than some may actually believe on what they are saying? Have you even consider than the current climate have allowed some politicians to be honest for a change? That maybe their previous pro or neutral immigration position was just a mask? You also blame on recession the overall Finnish hostility to some groups, but again, don't you think that maybe the majority of Finns just don't want Africans or Muslims in their country independently of the economy or unemployment figures?
I'm sorry but sometimes I wonder if you perception of the overall Finnish mindset is correct.
Here is where I get confused, if, as you said earlier, we should be discussing what they are doing in their on country, why when they come here we should just accept it?
Accepting the people doesn't necessary means accepting what they do. Is that a fair point?
You have as they do the right not to accept each other. However, I think this is a private matter. In a diverse society we should learn to allow cultural bygones be cultural bygones. Society belongs to its members not to an exclusive group that does not recognize others. The more inclusive a society is to all of its inhabitants the less problems it will have when it comes to relations. Equal opportunity and a lot of it is a key factor. That is one reason why the United States hasn't imploded because of all the immigrants that move there every day.
Few days ago I have pointed out the new stance the media is taking when reporting True Finns. I quoted Yle, HT and News Room. Now HS has joined the group.
Yesterday it published an analyze saying… "The True Finns are no longer a populist party in the accepted sense of the word."
Today it report it rising support saying… "Public support for the opposition True Finns party…"
Enrique, I asked before but you didn't answered… Why the change from "populist True Finns party" to "opposition True Finns party"? Is the media now giving then legitimacy? Is the media accepting them as a political force?
–Is the media now giving then legitimacy? Is the media accepting them as a political force?
Maybe. However, using adjectives and adverbs in a story is always dangerous. One style book classified adjectives and adverbs as the weeds of a garden and nouns and verbs as the flowers. If the story used no adjectives to describe the True Finns it would take a more neutral approach.
"If the story used no adjectives to describe the True Finns it would take a more neutral approach."
That's exactly my point, the media is changing from a hostile to neutral. But my question remains, if they haven't changed their policies and ideas why is the media changing then?
"I think this is a private matter."
Not necessarily, we have laws and rules that governs what we all do, and cultural freedom should be above the law. That's the problem I have with some groups, or shall I say, some group leaders, who believe they should be exempted from some of our laws, because it goes against of what they believe is right. The day we allow different groups to have deferent laws governing them, we'll have what you have most criticized here, the two-tiered society.
What kind of "laws" are you talking about at work?
In Germany they discuss right now if they should hire more teachers with foreign background. They could be role models for students. I think this is a good idea.
If I'm not mistaken there is a law with says that nobody should be discriminated against independently of his/her religion. So if a company has some rules with apply to all employees and some demand not to follow it based on his/her religious belief, we create a situation of with members of some religions must follow the rules and others don't. That, to my knowledge is religious discrimination, and, again, if I'm not mistaken, is against the law.
–That, to my knowledge is religious discrimination, and, again, if I'm not mistaken, is against the law.
A lawyer should be able to answer that question for you. Discrimination of any kind will harm your job rather than enhance it. I think, however, that a bit of consideration is more productive than creating a situation that fuels distrust. If you are a manager you know what I mean. You job is to insipire your workers to excell. How do you achieve that? That is where your intelligence and experience comes into play. I was a manager in Colombia for a US news agency and what I learned was that being a good leader was standing up and being behind your employees.
Enrique, how can I stress enough how right you are? However you don't achieve what you just said by treating people differently. What causes mistrust is making rules and allow some to brake when most have to follow. The best way inspire your workers is making sure all have the same opportunities and obligations, that nobody is batter than nobody.
I'm sorry to say but your multicultural policies only do the opposite. When giving some special privileges you only achieve mistrust and resentment. You fight here so hard against Finns having more rights than immigrants, why you want some immigrants to have more rights than Finns and other immigrants?
I'll give you a real life example.
The project I work at the moment is for a company just 1K from my home and my children school. Once it's not a SW company I don't have flexy time, I work from 9 to 12 and 13 from 17:30. This is my daughter first year at school. I'm just about 1K from the school and would love to collect her everyday, but she leaves at 13:10, so I can't, nobody can change the lunch time, I and others have asked and denied. IMHO it's a stupid rule, but it's a rule, and it's there for all.
If tomorrow a Catholic join the company and demand his lunch time be changed to fit the time for the mass and the company grants it I'd be very upset.
Now, please answer to me, do you think that giving a Catholic right to go to mass not allowing me to see my daughter after school will cause mistrust or inspire me to excel?
I'm sorry but if you want a equal society all the people living in it will have to be equal.
"…what I learned was that being a good leader was standing up and being behind your employees."
If you did you should know better than anyone that a good leader should be behind ALL your employees, regardless…
OnTheRoadToSuccess September 9th, 2010
It is interesting to note how the subject of this article has been twisted to the extent that readers no longer remember the defining question – DO YOU KNOW ANY CASES OF IMMIGRANTS BEING EXPLOITED BY EMPLOYERS IN FINLAND?
I am ashamed to say that if this was an examination, many of those who have commented so far would have failed!
That said, I know MANY cases of immigrant exploitation in Finland. This explains why I once wrote an article on my blog about the plight of migrant workers in Finland. The article is available at: http://www.zuzeeko.com/2010/03/exploitation-of-migrant-workers-in.html
Enrique, I can now confirm that many people mistakenly think all immigrants from countries that "live from UN ration bags," as Tony Garcia naively puts it, are illiterate. It is time we educate the public, don't you think?
There are many LITERATE and WELL EDUCATED immigrants who are being exploited by employers in Finland.
The problem is not illiteracy, the problem is the system that fails to protect a vulnerable group of people. Believe it or not!
Hi Zuzeeko, great to hear from you again. Thank you for the link.
The biggest problem in Finland is that immigrants do not have a voice and that political parties, as Jonas put it, are ready to hop on the populist bandwagon than stand for their principles. Being literate and well educated has nothing to do with understanding immigration. The road has been littered with too many of this kind. The main issue for politicians that use the immigration-bashing card for populist ends is that they see immigration as a threat. They are incapable of dealing with the matter and will make a mess of it if they get into power.
The link you provided is another example of the exploitation and how disenfranchised some immigrants are. The most incredible matter is that regulatory agencies that are supposed to watch these things are dragging their heels and doing very little. Why? Because there is little political will. Take a look at Eero Heinäluoma and Kari Rajamäki of the Social Democratic party as well as veteran politicians like Paavo Väyrynen of the Center Party and it will be easy to understand why immigrants have little say in this society over their affairs. It is shameful and scandalous.
"The biggest problem in Finland is that immigrants do not have a voice"
Enrique, quick question…
Would you welcome if a voice like mine started to be heard? After all I'm an immigrant…
Your voice is heard quite loudly in this blog.
I love it… Sorry but, I just love all this yomman rites mambo jambo. It's far more entertaining than the Mohammed's south park episode.
Just wonder, how about banging a hooker? Should I claim allowances for that as well? Isn't it a yomman rite too?
I don't know but something tells me that when you say…
You weren't referring just about your blog… But… Oh well…
Tiwaz September 13th, 2010
Zuzeeko, and in your blog entry we notice that you have done zero study on the issue as whole.
Tried to correct you there but having some issues with it, not matter.
It appears that your African example is cleaner?
Has certain location for cleaning and certain amount of hourse calculated to do it.
What you fail to grasp is that EXACTLY SAME ISSUE IS PRESENT WITH FINNISH WORKERS!
Indeed, if you were bothering to run some background study you would have PAM-members (Palvelualojen Ammattiliitto) who are 100% Finnish complain the very same issue.
But that would prove that it is not abuse of migrants but problem with ever tightening and increasing demands of efficiency. But of course, for racist immigrants this would not do because it would prove that migrants and Finns are treated equally!
So let's forget the facts and instead climb the barricade of lies and deception screaming racism.