No calls for Jew hating muslim settlers to be banned for rapes and murders however…..
The Finnish Resistence Movement is a neo-nazi org, I place them within the same ranks of the Leftist ANTIFA/Anrachist fascists who are in opposition to them. There is actually little difference between the two extreme ideologies, both are violent and totalitarian socialists. If they’re going to ban one group, ban all three. They’ll use this situation however to attack also those who are defending classic liberalism, mark my words.
Leena Malkki, a specialist in terrorism and political violence at the University of Helsinki, says that the events that transpired at the Central Railway Station two weeks ago will prove to be a turning point in Finland’s political climate.
Malkki said in a Saturday morning interview with Yle that when conflict or the actions of a group lead to deaths, whether intentionally or involuntarily, it radically changes people’s perceptions of the issue at hand.
“The Finnish Resistance Movement (FRM) has been around for years, and nothing in the incident differered from their activities so far,” Malkki said. “The only unusual thing is that the victim perished, and that essentially changes things in a political sense.”
Malkki first wrote a year ago that Finland has birthed a public discourse that enables political violence; in practice, a way of speaking that entails certain values and attitudes. She has mainly pointed to the silent approval of people resorting to illegal methods, such as individual acts of violence against asylum seekers and reception centres.
The FRM, however, has long been known to be an organisation with a propensity for violence. Malkki says that the growing tension in Finland can primarily be seen in the discussion following the act: the act itself is nothing new.
“Disproportionate countermeasures breed radicalism”
Malkki identifies a number of different factors that contribute to the practice and silent approval of political violence. First, the political system is open, and able to channel the concerns and discontent of the people. Citizens have to be able to trust that politicians are committed to safeguarding their personal security from threats and maintaining public order.
This trust has now eroded, says Malkki, who adds that Finland’s political leadership has not read the situation after the neo-Nazi attack correctly and has therefore not provided the communication and reaction the situation would have called for.
Politicians are now demanding that the Finnish Resistance Movement be banned.
“It’s good that we’re talking about what to do with extremist groups like the FRM. The country’s policy so far has been to observe and even partly condone such organisations, with the idea that they will dry up and go away because they are considered absurd and have a relatively small number of followers,” Malkki explains.
“There’s a certain wisdom there, because disproportionate countermeasures can breed radicalism. It’s the same as if various organisations would be judged differently in relation to what they do.”
Malkki says that Finland’s leaders have been remiss in not stating that the Finnish system of government does not recognise violence as a political tool. She says that expressing this simple fact would be more pertinent now than ever.
“Consequences should be unrelated to ideology”
Leena Malkki says that there is no clear rule as to when a group’s activities should be prohibited. Organisations have in fact been shut down for similar actions in Finland’s past, she says.
“It wouldn’t be an unusually tough line if Finland chose to do it. The Finnish way has usually been moderate. It’s more symbolic, but that shouldn’t be downplayed,” Malkki says.
She says that in practice, all communications should focus on stressing that the organisation is considered to be in opposition to Finnish society and legally unfit to practice in Finland.
The researcher says it is important that a group’s ideological stance would not affect the consequences of certain actions it undertakes.
“The same consequences would be incurred for equivalent deeds and activities, irregardless of the ideology behind the action.”