Finnish journalism 101
No one has the right to break the privacy of a private club or someone’s home for that matter, and violate the rights of another. Doing so is thuggery. (Leftist utopians in action usually involves the violation of other’s rights in one form or another) Besides, freedom to organize and associate is a fundamental right, if women want an all ”female club” go for it, private societies are free to pick and choose its own members for whatever their own reasons.
NOTE: This is what modern day journalism school develops: feeble minded totalitarian nut-jobs who will in fact, be counted on to use their pens to advance their own ideologies and causes. They haven’t a clue that they violated their own profession’s ethics code, as well as fundamental civil liberties. Here’s the article translated by myself, and the vid.
Here’s the video they took of their invasion of private property and violation of individual civil liberties. And they wonder why they don’t allow women in.
End of the staircase is a sturdy, wooden door. It’s locked. Will we now fail?
Nope: footsteps are heard, the door opens.
“Hey,” said a female staff member looking at us stunned.
“Hey,” we say as we don our balaclavas over our faces.
Then we press the play button, and the mahogany-colored furniture in the apartment filled with silence is broken with loud punk music. Almost immediately we hear a sharp cry – the Pörssi (Exchange) Club boss is right behind us.
The direction is clear, and now are in a hurry: towards the club’s Library room.
Bourse Club is a gentlemen’s club. Men can have lunch at the club and exchange news. There they are speaking about important things. In fact, the most important of them: money and power.
Club director Michael Nyman has praised in the Tulva-Journal that the membership are representatives from all Finland’s success stories, from Stora Enso to Nokia.
“There are presidents, ministers, and a lot of foreign and domestic leading characters,” Nyman said five years ago.
Member’s list is a secret, but for example, the club’s board chairman Juhani Mäkinen has eight on the board of, such as Fazer and Lemminkäinen. Iltalehti last spring informed that membership is about 1 500, and the number is growing all the time.
The club was founded in 1910 – three years before Yliopistolehti magazine. These are the times.
In fact, initially Ylioppilaslehti magazine was a kind of gentlemen’s club. The magazine had a long history of mostly angry young men. Gradually, more and more women began to be paid for articles and receive monthly wages.
Until the 1980s, then it started getting interested in feminism and women published on real women’s issues. Throughout the 2000s, the situation has been that the majority of the magazine are women.
Bourse Club has not seen similar changes, although the club’s web page says that “tradition will remain but the activities are adapted continuously to the demands of today and future challenges.”
In Finland, a woman can be a minister or the Governor of the Bank Finland, but the women being accepted by the Bourse Club is still considered to be too great “by today’s standards.”
“The current view is an accordance with the will of the membership,” Chairman of the Board Mäkinen says on the phone.
In spite of the Bourse Club members only allows access to men, the club’s premises are visited by women. The club has a restaurant, where a member can bring followers to lunch, regardless of gender. Women can admire the dignity of breaths in the atmosphere of the club, and a clump of red carpet – but not one woman must set foot in. The library space is dedicated only to gentlemen.
Last spring, YLE asked the club manager Michael Nyman, whether it would be time to move on to include women members. Nyman, dodging, said that women are indeed welcome as guests.
“As club leader I must say that it is always very nice when a few women come here to the club as a guest, so I have something to delight the eye,” he said.
Ylioppilaslehti (Student Paper) decided to delight with a visit.
We are in the Library!
“Silence!” Is written on plaque hanging on the wall in the room. The music roars.
The self-crafted balaclava has spun on the subeditor’s head, but from the second eye can detect the Pörssi Club director’s angry look. Director adheres firmly to the left arm of the hooligan and covers with the right hand the video camera.
The journalist sits in the leather chair in the middle of the room, which has been part of the rumor. Mannerheim had at sometime sat there, maybe. The journalist waves her legs. Crying intermittently with slogans. There are three of us and I have a feeling that director can not decide what he should do next.
We start to creep around. The editor is running from the club leader escaping around the white-covered tables, table cloths with a deer in snow field.
The director pushs toward the outer door and grabs another en route by the arm. Out of the grip, toward the staircase!
“Go home children and grow up,” he shouted after us when we leave by the stairway.
Less than a minute-long women’s uninvited visit to the Bourse Club is over.
Yes we are going to grow up at some point in adulthood. But how long before the Bourse Club grows up?
Ayn Rand on citizen disobedience:
Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.
But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.
The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.
The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physicalintimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.
Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions.
“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”