Finland Finnish Politics Statism The Finns



Overreach in my opinion, with much bigger fish left to fry.

One of the reasons that, while I have supported The Finns party to counter other parties on key pressing issues, the party always remains for me the lesser of two evils. The reason for this is that The Finns party are very much a big government party, and here is one example of the big government mindset intruding into the private affairs of the private citizen by one of its party members. Male circumcision.

Everyone that regularly reads this blog, already knows of my attitude towards Islamization. You already know that I reject any governmental appeasement of Islamic fundamentalists’ demands upon the non-Muslim Finnish society. This however is not one of those issues. It’s a matter of big government getting into the private lives of its citizens, dictating, what, and what not, they may do according to their own religious beliefs.

Male circumcision is a private, family matter that effects both Jewish, and yes, Muslim citizens, and is an unnecessary overreach. Remember, the Muslim will always find a way around the rules and regs we invent, by inventing new rules of their own to get around them. Jews however, abide by the law, but also have been the subject of severe discrimination and persecution over their beliefs and traditions that effect no one else but themselves.

Jews/Judaism has never sought to impose Jewish religious law on anyone else, they just simply want to be left alone to be Jews in their private lives. Islam/Muslims, however, seeks the exact opposite, and desire to impose Islamic law, sharia, upon the non-Muslim. This just happens to be one of those issues (circumcision) where it has absolutely no impact whatsoever upon non-Muslims nor their society and should be left alone.

Go after sharia compliance in the school cafeterias and in the work place, in banking, selling halal meat unbeknown to the consumer, wearing full facial coverings in banks, allowing businesses to discriminate against perceived security risks etc. etc. etc. wherever it impacts public life.

NOTE: Female circumcision is mutilation and deserves banning.

Finns Party proposes circumcision ban

published today Mar 7 06:39 AM, updated today Mar 7 06:48 AM

Finns Party MP Vesa-Matti Saarakkala is calling for the criminalisation of male circumcision in Finland. In a formal inquiry to the government, Saarakkala says expanding the circumcision ban on girls to include boys is an issue of fundamental rights.

The Finns Party parliamentarian wants the courts to adopt a streamlined approach on male circumcision. He points to two recent circumcision court cases. In one a layman and the child’s parents were convicted of conspiracy to commit assault. In the other, a doctor who performed a circumcision was not convicted, but the child’s father was fined for assault.

Saarakkala is advocating cutting out circumcision for both sexes.

Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court has ruled that ritual male circumcision is legal when carried out under medical supervision.

More here.

52 Responses

  1. In democracy the majority decides the laws.
    If a Jewish or Mohammedan man want to have circumcision, he can arrange it later when he is adult. I think that especially peace loving Jewish people can accept this in a country like Finland. Finland want to respect the sovereignty of a small child.

    1. I disagree Pekka, the intrusion of the state into the private affairs of the family is a no go for me. Period.

      1. So KGS. You think the state has no right to interfere in Female Genital Mutilation either? And you presumably have no problem with a father raping his daughter? How about a mother deciding her child would be better off without a penis, and deciding to remove that using a sharp knife in her own kitchen? I guess you don’t oppose the Congolese couple in east London recently who killed a child relative because they thought he was a witch?

        Parents mutilating their child’s genitals to satisfy a sky pixie (or other delusion) is in the same ballpark of at least as some of the above. Just because it’s gone unopposed for millenia doesn’t make it right. Muslims have propounded slavery for 1300 years — it doesn’t make slavery right.

        1. Joe, that’s plain silly. If you read the article, I state that FGM is to be banned, because it is just that, mutilation in every sense of the word. You’re mixing apples and oranges with acts of violence described with that of circumcision. Radical secularists harbor the same mentality as sharia advocates, and seek to enforce their will upon an unwilling populace, it’s tyranny in a different package.

          1. You said “the intrusion of the state into the private affairs of the family is a no go for me. Period.” That is pretty emphatic and unequivocal.

            Circumcision is male genital mutilation. Period. Some cases are worse than others, just as some cases of female genital mutilation are worse than others. I’m glad to see that the PVV and The Finns are adopting this consistent opposition to the mutilation of children’s bodies.

            We would not tolerate parents cutting off one of a child’s ears. The child can still hear. No civilised society allows the parents of a child to dispose of a child’s body how the parent sees fit (unless, of course, in the case of abortion, where we decide to legislate — wrongly — that the unborn child is not a child).

            What’s the reason for your inconsistency. Did you have your own child circumcised? I can understand it must be hard for those parents who have done that to their child. But then I expect those people who mutilate their daughter’s genitals also think they are doing the right thing, or that it is no-one else’s business.

          2. KGS-is it okay to remove the hood of the clitoris from baby girls? If you are/were female is that an organ you would have removed from them? circumcised men have to live without that body part. no one should have their foreskin cut off-it is mutilation.

          3. Hey moron, I never said a girl should be circumcised.

  2. In democracy the majority decides the laws.

    haha… since when?
    What kind of legitimacy does it grant, that the majority wants to do things in a certain way? As a matter of fact, democracy is not writing the legislation according to the majority’s will, true democracy is a construction which gives protection to minorities.

    I agree KGS’s statement, that it is not the state’s job to decide what ordinary men and women are allowed to do in their lives. Some decisions are right and some are wrong. However, there is no state official who can decide it better than ourselves, when we talk about our very own lives.

    It is a common thing for politicians to make us believe that they know the right way to live and want our assets for helping us to live that way. I really, honestly can’t think why anyone gives a support for such efforts.

    1. In full agreement! It’s the rejection of these constitutional rights (that safeguards ALL our rights) by the geniuses in government that is the bigger danger here, not the cutting of a boy’s foreskin. The day you allow the government control over your private affairs, that includes raising children how you see fit, is the day you opt for tyranny.

      1. The day you allow the government control over your private affairs, that includes raising children how you see fit, is the day you opt for tyranny.

        Yep, that’s the point in here.

    2. To Kumitonttu:
      You said: “true democracy is a construction which gives protection to minorities.”
      Exactly what you said. In this case the law should give protection to a newborn baby.

      1. The thing is Pekka, you and your like minded supporters of the measure, assume, that it’s in fact, a violation, though we know for a fact, circumcised males boys have no ill affects from the procedure. I’m all for anti-Islamization measures, as long as they do not violate the rights of the individual, in this case the rights of the parent(s) to raise their children how they see fit, not the state.

        1. “we know for a fact, circumcised males boys have no ill affects from the procedure…” No, we don’t. Perhaps if you were a gay man who had met many circumcised and uncircumcised men, you would have more information to draw on. I’ve met men whose pensises were severely disfigured (mutilated), and also men who sex lives were severely hampered by the circumcision imposed upon them. I’ve also met a few men who have decided as adults to become circumcised, and it was extremely painful for them. But that was their wish – most did it for sound medical reasons.

        2. actually there is quite a bit of research maintaining that when 20,000 erogenous nerve endings are removed from the tip of one’s penis or clitoris it hampers the sex life quite badly. There is also documentation from men who have been circumcised as adults. they say that without a foreskin the head of the penis had no protection and they lost about fifty percent of what they had before, and that it was the worst mistake of their lives. it sounds like you can’t confront having made a wrong decision.

          1. As a circumcised male, I find everything that you wrote as being totally false.

          2. KGS said: “As a circumcised male, I find ….”

            Ah this all makes sense now.

          3. KGS said: “Which means absolutely nothing Joe.”

            eh….yeah riiiiiiiight.

      2. The circumcision of a baby boy when he is eight days old is probably the single most important aspect of Judaism. Doing it as an adult is superfluous unless one is converting to Judaism. The problem with legislation which attempts to counter illiberal practices is that bills, such as the one proposed by Saarakkala, are short-sighted and militantly secular against minority religions. Kumitonttu is spot on, “the day you allow the government control over your private affairs, that includes raising children how you see fit, is the day you opt for tyranny.”

        No need to make a mountain out of a molehill and government is almost never the answer.

        1. Give DM a ”rim shot”. 100% correct. Come on folks, the logic is there, we don’t need secular taliban types anymore than the Islamic sharia version.

        2. cutting off part of the penis is absolutely not the single most important aspect of judaism. that is so sick. i am a jewish man. i moved from brooklyn to the navajo indian reservation when i was 9 years old and lived there until i was 15. i NEVER forgot i was jewish, and guess what? i am uncircumcised. people that believe jews deserve less erogenous tissue because of their ethnicity are anti-semitic. i see you the way muslim girls do those other islamic people that want to cut off the hoods of their clitorises.

          1. IDW, your story is highly suspect, especially since you’ve labeled 99% of world wide Jewry…anti-Semitic.

      3. Nykänen should familiarize himself with the definition of liberal democracy. In a real democracy minorities are protected from the government. Government coercion is a threat. Islamic practice of circumcision is archaic b.c it is not done under proper considerations for the baby´s health. The problem therefore is not circumcision per se, but the way it is performed. Female circumcision is mutilation, b.c it is a medical fact. Male circumcision does not cause pain or suffering for the boy later in life but it does that for the girl.

        On a different note, Jews have been circumcising babies when Finns were still practicing paganism and witchcraft.

        1. To DM.
          What is your answer to a man who has converted form Judaism to Christianity when he asks why he has been circumcised without his permission ?
          As a finnish citizen a small baby should have protection against religious rituals. Persons, who have difficulties to accept this human right to babies, possibly are not suitable to live in a free country like Finland.

          1. A child is under the parental guidance of the parent, not the state, nor busy bodies. The state is not the parent. Religious beliefs are in fact protected, and the state can not intrude upon the rights of the individual to impose a state value system. That is tyranny Pekka. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.

          2. Or indeed from Judaism to Sikhism, which values the intact body to the point of not cutting the hair?

            “Male circumcision does not cause pain or suffering for the boy later in life” Oh no?

        2. “Jews have been circumcising babies when Finns were still practicing paganism and witchcraft.” When circumcision began it WAS witchcraft – or at least, sympathetic magic. With stone tools and no asepsis, it would have killed more babies than it ever protected from anything.

          1. Hugh7, your being dishonest here. Circumcision has never been deemed witchcraft, period. Now you’re saying that it is (in a kneejerk effort) to counter DM’s point. Ok, I get that. But why all the angst against a Jewish tradition that in no way affects you and your children? Are you really pulling for more healthier Jewish babies, or intent on restricting their traditions for other reasons?

  3. A lot of seculars tend to forget that the separation of state and church also means that the it is non of the state’s business to intervene in private matters. Just look at Obama administration and the whole birth control issue. They have no right to do that. The whole issue is about the state intruding in our private lives. That’s what people forget so easily. No wonder our countries are going down the drain.

    1. So you are saying that it is not the state’s business if some parents decide as part of their religion to kill their child?

      1. There is a big difference between parents deciding what they feel is best in their childeren’s lifes and actually taking lifes. Wrong comparison Joe.

        1. But the effects of circumcision last not just while they are children, but lifelong. We do not let parents cut any other normal, healthy, integral, functional, non-renewing parts off their children’s bodies, and to circumcise a non-consenting man would be a battery.

          1. MSNBC: Last month, the National Institutes of Health published a surprising report in The Lancet showing that circumcision reduced a man’s risk of contracting HIV, the AIDS virus, through heterosexual sex by 51 to 60 percent compared with men who were not circumcised. The findings were based on two trials in Africa involving more than 7,500 men and were halted early because the preliminary results were so striking.
            Another study , published in the journal Pediatrics in November, followed 510 New Zealand newborns until age 25 and found that circumcision cut the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases by about half.
            Advertise | AdChoices

            These studies are just the latest to point to circumcision’s potential health benefits, says AAP president Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer.

  4. ‘KGS’ here clearly shows that jews basically are the same kind of oriental madmen just as mohammedans are. Only that they proceed more cautiously.

    We need neither of these 2 ethnic groups here, if they wish to retain with ostentation their ooriental identity. Of course we should not even let them enter in the first place.

    Do you have the balls to publish this message, ‘KGS’? Probably not, they will have been removed during your own circumcision. .)

    1. Let me get this straight M.Laudahn, one group, Muslims, who seek to promote, implement Islamic law (sharia) that will radically change our liberal (classical sense) democratic societies into a helleish 7th century backwater existence, is the same as Jews who for the most part, have overwhleming assimilated themselves and are more culturally Jewish than enything else, and whose religion in private, not interfering with public life….are the same?

      I believe you’re using the situation of Islamization to hide (not hiding it anymore) your deepe seated Jew hatred, you never liked Jews, and will use the situation to do what Hitler never managed to achieve, rid the contintent of them.

      1. KGS why do you think it is okay to remove the hood (of the clitoris or the penis) from anyone without their consent? you can’t say circumcision doesn’t remove sensation because you lost it when you were an infant. i have a foreskin and unless you had an abnormal one, then trust me you lost a lot. also, it was cut off without your consent. you can say you “don’t care” about what’s missing, or that sex is “good enough,” but it isn’t anyone’s choice to make that decision for another person, even if it happened to them. it is anti-semitic to remove parts of people’s penises because of their ethnicity. please understand i did not call any individual anti-semitic, as it is implied they would not want to hold an anti-semitic belief. jews deserve as good a quality of life as anyone circumcision lowers quality of life. since a majority of jews in sweden are uncircumcised i think you made up the 99.9% statistic used earlier. and i don’t see why my “story” as you call it is suspect.

  5. The majority of the medical organizations in the world are opposed to infant circumcision. This includes:
    The Canadian Pediatric Society,
    Royal Australasian College of Physicians,
    British Medical Association,
    Royal Dutch Medical Society,
    The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,
    The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,
    The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
    The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,
    The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,
    The Netherlands Urology Association,
    The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association,
    Royal College of Surgeons of England,
    Swedish Pediatric Society,
    College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia,
    Royal Australasian College of Surgeons,
    Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
    Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations,
    Australian Medical Association,

    This is an issue of human rights. One person’s rights end where another’s begin. Permanently amputating a nonconsenting person’s body parts is not the same as raising them to believe something, a belief they may later choose to follow or not. Amputation is irreversible; any intact man can choose to get a circumcision at any point in his life, but a man whose foreskin is cut off without his consent can never be made whole again.

    “your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.” – old proverb

    In no other case is anyone allowed to cut off a healthy person’s parts without consent, because of the cutter’s religion. This is forced body mutilation, plain and simple.

    1. Big government types that want to run roughshod over the rights of the individual, in this case, parents. Statism is tyranny, and it doesn’t matter to me how many sign on to it, they haven’t the right to dictate in private matters.

      1. What a fool you are.

        Rights of the individual? Are you fucking serious? What about rights of the individual to whom the penis belongs? Do they not deserve a say? Circumcision IS a personal decision, but only for the person to whom the penis belongs. To say that carving your religion into your child’s genitals, or carving a cosmetic preference into your child’s genitals, leaving them scarred, mutilated, missing sensitive parts of the male genitalia, is a parental right, is mindblowingly retarded.

        And notice you change your perspective on female genital cutting, for no other reasons than that you are completely ignorant of normal male anatomy, and the varying degrees of severity of FGM, and you’re culturally biased – it’s easier to criticize a practice that is not part of your culture than one that is.

        1. You’re an ignoramus then. FGM involves cutting off, and in many cases, sewing over, the sensitive tissue of the vagina. Circumcision for males is in fact a private issue, the rights of the parents to practice their faith free from secular talibanis intrusion in their affairs. You’re mixing apples and oranges to get rid of a Jewish practice, and something tells me its not because your worried about Jewish babies.

          1. I’m Jewish and I’m circumcised and I support a ban on circumcision. It’s not fair to me that my parents made such a personal decision for me, a decision that has had life long consequences. I’ve undergone three surgeries to try and correct the effects of my circumcision and I’m awaiting several more. Overall, I will spend more than $100,000 on these surgeries once I’m done. All over a circumcision that I never even asked for. Saying that I shouldn’t have a right to my body and a right to be protected from unnecessary dangerous surgery simply because I’m Jewish is antisemitic. You are singling Jewish infants out for bodily harm based on their religion. My circumcision has caused me nothing but pain in my life and if G-d decides to bless me and my wife with a son, I would NEVER circumcise him.

  6. “In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence.”
    – The American Cancer Society

    “There is no medical indication for routine male circumcision.”
    – The Royal Australian College of Physicians

    “There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.”
    – The Royal Australasian College of Physicians

    “The foreskin has two main functions. Firstly it exists to protect the glans penis. Secondly the foreskin is a primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis.”
    – The Royal Australasian College of Physicians

    “Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male circumcision because it is recognized that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent. After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
    – The Royal Australasian College Physicians

    “Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweight harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate.”
    – The Royal Australasian College of Physicians

    “There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/theraputic grounds.”
    – The Royal Dutch Medical Association

    “Doctors should ensure that any parents seeking circumcision for their son in the belief that it confers health benefits are fully informed of the lack of consensus amongst the profession over such benefits, and how great any potential benefits and harms are. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.”
    – The British Medical Association

    “The BMA is generally very supportive of allowing parents to make choices on behalf of their children, and believes that neither society nor doctors should interfere unjustifiably in the relationship between parents and their children. It is clear from the list of factors that are relevant to a child’s best interests, however, that parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child.”
    – The British Medical Association

    “Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactive health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-theraputic and medically unnecessary intervention.”
    – The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

    “We recommend that the genital integrity of boys be preserved. Parental request for non-therapeutic circumcision of a son appears to exceed the powers granted to parents by law. We further recommend that doctors refuse to perform non-therapeutic circumcision at parental request.”
    – Doctors Opposing Circumcision

    “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”
    – The American Academy of Pediatrics

    “It may be expected that local customs will influence any decision for or against routine circumcision of male infants during the first few days of life, For instance. this is rarely done in Britain, whereas in parts of California it is quite common, perhaps as an index of social status or virtually as universal policy in some large hospitals. Nevertheless, there is no medical indication for circumcision during the neonatal period.”
    – The Canadian Paediatric Society

  7. KGS,

    You are misinformed on FGM. There are actually 4 different types. Type I is the most common and only involves removing either the prepuce or the clitoris. I’m sure you are aware that the prepuce of a female is the hood and that of a male is the foreskin. If the removal of the same organ of the female is protected under law, why not that of the male? Are you educated on the function of the male prepuce? Not only does it provide the necessary gliding motion for intercourse, it also protects the glans (head) from chafing, keratinization, and keeps the glans as an internal organ as it is autonomically meant to be. How is this not a human rights issue? That baby is going to grow into an adult. The fact that he can not speak out about it now does not mean that he should not have his rights protected. He has a right to a fully functioning penis, free of mutilation.

    1. Hey AMO, it’s called religious liberty. There are also healthy aspects to the custom. Even if it didn’t offer any extra positive attributes, it’s still a matter of private, individual liberty of the parent, who doesn’t need any of you “geniuses” to tell him or her how to raise their child. Doing so is nothing short of tyranny.

  8. It’s a shame that the idiocy of the people can’t recognize how taking a child’s normal and healthy genitals and cutting the most sensitive parts while desensitizing others is anything short of sexual assault.

    When a sicko tries to proclaim it’s his or her right as a parent to sexually assault their child, that sicko deserves to be imprisoned indefinitely to assure that they have no way to harm children or until they recognize that they do not own a child’s body. That they have no right to pick and choose which normal and healthy body parts a child will take into adulthood.

    Such imbeciles fail to recognize the similarities of female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation due to societal blinders that damage their powers of cognisance. It matters not the severity of either assault. All that matters is both are unforgivable acts of domination upon a child’s body that result in permanent damage. It’s no one’s right to decide for others what body parts they will retain at adulthood, only themselves. To suggest anything otherwise is to either suggest that female genital mutilation is equally valid or to expose one’s ethnocentric sexism.

    1. Loose skin hanging over the penis is not akin to the cutting into of the genitalia of girl.

      1. it is EXACTLY the same thing as cutting off the hood of the clitoris. what looks like “loose skin” to you is an erogenous zone. sorry you lost it.

        1. Bull crap. Keep your paws off my boy’s genitals, I’l raise them as I see fit, not according to a bunch of totalitarians who want to use government to torment the individual. Spend your time more usefully, like attacking sharia law, and islamization of western society.

        2. //

          Circumcision tied to lower prostate cancer risk’ By REUTERS03/13/2012 06:57

          Men who were circumcised had 15% lower risk of the disease, recent study finds.

          Circumcised men may have a slightly lower risk of developing prostate cancer than those who still have their foreskin, according to a US study.

          The World Health Organization already recommends the controversial procedure based on research showing it lowers heterosexual men’s risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

          Last year scientists also reported that wives and girlfriends of circumcised men had lower rates of infection with human papillomavirus or HPV, which in rare cases may lead to cervical and other cancers. And last week, researchers reported that African men who were circumcised were less likely to be infected with a particular herpes virus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *