They’re throwing a whole lot of charges against the guy to see what will stick.
I personally don’t follow his site, finding it disgusting he’s aligned with Jew hater, Juha Kärkkäinen of the infamous antisemitic online magazine, magnettimedia. That said, the use of hate speech laws against private citizens here is horrendous, at least for now in the US it hasn’t devolved to such a level due to 1st amendment rights of free speech.
The founder of a popular anti-immigrant website could face arrest and extradition to Finland after a Helsinki court remanded him in custody in absentia. That verdict means the prosecutor can now issue a European arrest warrant.
Police and prosecutor had requested the verdict as they could not locate Janitskin for questioning on charges including aggravated slander and agitation against an ethnic group. He lives in Spain and has said that he may consider seeking asylum to avoid the Finnish authorities.
Janitskin is also suspected of money laundering and gambling crimes, illegal threats, breaches of confidentiality and copyright infringement.
Also on Thursday, the deputy state prosecutor said she would bring charges of incitement to ethnic hatred against a Finns Party councillor in Tampere.
Terhi Kiemunki had made offensive comments about Muslims in a blog post on the Uusi Suomi website. The case will be heard at Pirkanmaa District court but no date has been set for the hearing.
Ok, it would have been more correct to have said ”but the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslims”, but that’s splitting hairs while muslims are splitting heads.
In July, shortly after the terror attack in Nice, France, the Finnish MP wrote that “all Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”
NOTE: They’ll determine whether incitement of ”racial hatred” has occurred, though Islam is as much of a race as the US Republican Party.
Police say they have concluded their preliminary investigation about derogatory comments Finns Party MP Teuvo Hakkarainen wrote about Muslims on his Facebook page in July.
In July, shortly after the terror attack in Nice, France, the Finnish MP wrote that “all Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”
In order to officially explain his comments, Hakkarainen spoke with police during the preliminary investigation.
Case headed to prosecutor’s office
The case will next be examined by the Prosecutor General’s office which will determine whether charges of incitement of racial hatred will be filed.
The prosecutor’s office has also previously investigated Hakkarainen’s other comments, including ones about “negro men” and heckling Muslims.
Previously, Hakkarainen also suggested that all of Finland’s Somalians and homosexuals should be sent to Åland to form an ideal society, but later said he was only joking.
Oh, I do hope that they pay me a visit in the comment section so I can play with them like a cat with a ball of yarn.
Finland’s Interior Minister wants the police to be more proactive in taking on hate speech online. Paula Risikko says that police leaders should consider new ways of working to uncover, investigate and prevent extremist groups operating online.
In addition, she says that the Justice and Interior Ministries should jointly consider if legislative changes are needed.
“Under the current legislation it seems difficult to investigate the background and motives of figures involved in hate speech, and to intervene,” said Risikko in a statement. “The legislation is also fragmented.”
On Friday Helsinki-based police officer Jarmo Heinonen, who works with online offences, told Yle that the law needs to be clarified. At present it does not define clearly what constitutes hate speech and what does not.
Risikko also said that she would ‘take another look’ at the resources devoted to online policing. The National Police Board has said that it will report in the next few weeks on how many extra people it feels are necessary.
Using violence by thuggish leftist racists (Finnish Resistance Movement) as a pretext, Finnish mp’s race like hell to curb our public square speech.
Mark my words, saying anything negative about Islam and about some of its practitioners will now be deemed as ”racism”. Using their logic, anything negative being said in public discourse against US Republicans should now be considered hate speech. It’s as if Flemming Rose never gave that speech in Helsinki at the beginning of this year.
NOTE: They’re jackasses, what we need is more speech to counter the speech that we disagree with. Lazy knuckleheads can only respond with the brunt force of state power.
Nine MPs launched a bill to outlaw ‘organised racism’ on Thursday. The eight come from each of the eight parties represented in parliament, but they will need at least another 91 MPs to back their proposal for it to proceed.
The bill aims to ban any organisation or organised activities that promote racial discrimination. Participation in such activities would be punishable by the criminal courts.
The bill was proposed by Ozan Yanar (Green), Outi Alanko-Kahiluoto (Green), Annika Saarikko (Centre), Tiina Elovaara (Finns Party), Saara-Sofia Sirén (National Coalition), Nasima Razymar (Social Democrat), Hanna Sarkkinen (Left Alliance), Eva Biaudet (Swedish People’s Party) and Sari Essayah (Christian Democrat).
The leader of the Green Party’s youth wing Jaakko Mustakallio, who had proposed the initiative, said that it aimed to eliminate confusion over the interpretation of existing laws against hate speech and discrimination.
The move comes a week after a man died following an assault in which the main suspect is a member of the neo-Nazi Finnish Resistance Movement.
The owner resides in Spain….
It’s a real bottom feeder type of site, and outside of few good breaking stories, it has lots of Jew hatred from Magnetti Media that I’ve posted on from time to time. So it’s one of these sites I’m not happy about, though I’m glad some form of free speech observance is still recognised in Finland.
On Friday the Helsinki District Court overturned a petition by Helsinki police to shut down the MV-Lehti, an alternative news website that police suspect of disseminating false information and encouraging hate speech.
The Helsinki police department called on the court to terminate online communications coming from a certain IP address owned by OVH Hosting Ltd, Net9 Ltd, and the sole trader NP Networking, and which is responsible for publishing MV-Lehti and Uber Uutiset, a sister site to MV-Lehti with similar content.
The court did not disclose the arguments behind its decision.
Inaccuracies, distortions, suspected copyright infringements
Police had previously received dozens of criminal complaints about MV-Lehti. They determined that several of the site’s articles may have been inaccurate, distorted or fulfilled the criteria for copyright infringement.
The inflammatory website was founded in 2014 by Spain-based Ilja Janitskin, who also owns a number of other websites. MV stands for “Mita vittua” (in English What the f***?) and the website became a talking point after publishing a series of vitriolic articles about migration and other subjects.
The site gained a wider following in Finland since large numbers of asylum seekers began arriving in Europe and media began reporting on crimes committed by some of the new arrivals. The website’s articles were published without attribution, so none of the contributors were known.
In July Finnish media reported that the both the MV-Lehti and Uber Uutiset websites were no longer available. At the time Janitskin had posted a notification on his Facebook page indicating that the site’s Finnish servers had been taken down and would be reinstated elsewhere in due course.
Brian sends me the ”offending” comment that got him banned, it’s in relation to a story I posted concerning the French enacting exact policies on self defence against the jihad that it had earlier condemned Israel for:
I’m sorry the French have to go through this again. There is nothing you did to deserve death at the hands of Islamic Jihad again. The entire culpability lies with a political ideology that orders its followers to “fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet”. Having encouraged Israel to give in tc and make concessions to Islamic terror for half a century, however, the French state is part of a world wide problem that has prevented the defeat of this global monster.
#RelentlessJihad #NiceJihad #NiceAttack
Brian John Thomas has been banned from Facebook for 3 days. Don’t bother sending messages, they won’t be answered. https://t.co/PxBreWI6Bt
— Brian of London PhD (@brianoflondon) August 17, 2016
They’ll find him guilty, they have to, they’ve already deemed it a crime to speak truthful about Islam
The truth is no longer a defence in Finnish court system, the Jussi Hallo-aho case proved that.
NOTE: I sat in the same row as Sebastian during YLE’s televised speech by Denmark’s Flemming Rose on free speech last year 2015.
Police received a request from a member of the public to look into several internet posts written by Finns Party Youth chair Sebastian Tynkkynen.
The complainant claimed that Tynkkynen had spread false and hateful attitudes against Muslims in Finland.
According to Oulu Detective Chief Tapani Tasanto, the complaint included about a dozen pages of Tynkkynen’s posts.
“The person who submitted the inquiry request had copied the texts and printed them out,” Tasanto said. “It seems that the texts, at least to a certain extent, were Facebook posts.”
Tasanto said the complaint claimed that Tynkkynen’s writings were not only racist, discriminating and baseless but also “clearly aimed at certain ethnic groups.”
Last month the youth politician called for all Muslims without Finnish citizenship to be deported to their countries of origin. Police say they received the complaint arrived in late July.
According to Tasanto the prosecutor’s office is not yet involved in the case and the preliminary investigation is just beginning.
NOTE II: There is no such thing as ”hate speech”, there is only speech with which you agree, disagree or have no opinion on at all.
Daring to offend the elite is coming at a cost……
Time to read Denmark’s Flemming Rose’ speech on free speech in Helsinki.
An original translation by Nash Montana, and video by Egri Nok with much thanks!
Amadeu Foundation demands deletion of ZDF satire piece about the foundation’s censorship madness on the internet
An unmasking of unprecedented proportion is plaguing the Amadeu Antonio Foundation of the ex-Stasi employer Anetta Kahane. She has just recently been crowned as the supreme watchdog in relation to “hate speech on the internet” by Heiko Maas, Germany’s Minister of Justice. And because of a ZDF piece which satirizes this, the Foundation has now activated the Board of Censors (Fernsehrat) to have the satire piece removed from its mediatheque.
It can be largely predicted how this is going to go from now on: The probability is very high that in the coming days a finely tuned hate campaign against Winter will be launched, during which, among other things, tweets will be unearthed and according to the contact co-guilt principle, the social context of the moderator will be put in the desired spotlight. All that with the maximum goal to chase Winter out of his reporter’s job. The list of those who have been robbed of their basis of existence through the ideological mania of self-appointed Leftists is long. And the internet is a beloved weapon of choice. And so we can clearly see in the case of Achim Winter, what the real problem is in Germany: The most dangerous “hate speakers” are currently advising the Federal Ministry of Justice.
Dr.Brian of London: “Proleptic Dhimmitude, the doctrine of preemptive surrender”.
I was just forwarded this, and no, it doesn’t surprise me in the least, our countries are being managed/run by the most extreme forms of mediocrity imaginable.
The maroon in 2009:
The Islam which I felt in Southeast Asia where I used to live, is a fine religion, about as good as Christianity. It is very close to green ideology and Nordic social democracy.
In 2015 she called the late philosopher Ayn Rand “an extreme right-winger.”
Yes, and do notice Finland (Sweden and Norway should be included as well) for its role in attacking individuals for holding ”incorrect” thinking.
Press freedom has declined by 14% since 2013 pic.twitter.com/18xyRDeUgz
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 6, 2016
Everyone needs to read/watch Denmark’s Jylland-Posten’s Flemming Rose’s speech he delivered in Helsinki in 2016 on free speech.
Thank you for this kind introduction.
It’s a pleasure to be here, especially in this wonderful building.
I will not talk about cartoons today. I will be happy to answer questions, of course, if you have any regarding the cartoons, but what I’m going to say of course is informed about my thinking about the cartoon crisis that took place almost ten years ago. What it means for our understanding in the approach to free speech in the world today.
I will talk about free speech in the globalized world. Let me start by saying that I believe that we find ourselves in a new situation when it comes to the global debate about freedom of speech, because the debate is being driven by two new factors that didn’t used to be part of the framework within which we talked about free speech.
The new factor is technology, the digital technology. That means what is being published in a small language, in a small country that very few people would read and have access to, is now being published immediately, everywhere, and people can not only read and access it, they may also react to it even five thousand kilometers away, as we experienced it during the cartoon crisis.
So technology is the one new factor that we have to deal with. The other new factor that isn’t that new but its scale is new, and that is migration. You experience it here in Finland, countries around the world are experiencing this factor, that means that never have so many people moved across borders in such mass numbers as they do today.
So every society in the world, or at least the vast majority of them, are getting more and more multicultural, more and more multi-ethnic and more and more multi-religious. The “new technology” means that when information travels, context disappears, and it creates enormous room for manipulation and misunderstanding.
Even cultures that were pretty close can experience this kind of misunderstanding, as we saw in the spring of 2015 Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine, received a free speech award for their courage from American PEN, and it created a huge debate in the United States. In fact, in America people perceived Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons as racist, while in France many people saw them as targeting racism.
So in this new world of technology and migration the key question is: how do we safeguard, how do we protect the fundamental liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of religion in a digital and borderless world?
I will come back to my answer to this question in my final remarks, but let me at this point say that we need a common global standard for free speech and its limits, in order to be able to defend free speech across borders.
As long as we do have an international standard it is possible for international free speech organizations, free speech advocates to approach violations of free speech in other countries and to defend people who are being targeted for what they say.
We already have a pretty good infrastructure for a global public space; that is the internet and satellite TV. When it comes to the law, what is going on in our daily lives, in places around the world, I think we are moving in the other direction.
Instead of working out or approaching a common standard of free speech and limitations on speech, we are experiencing a more and more fragmented concept.
Why is that? Why is this taking place?
I think one key answer has to do with identity politics. Both on the level of government and on the level of different groups, religious, ethnic, so on and so forth, that want to protect their identity and themselves against criticism.
Instead of focusing on what unites us as human beings across borders and cultures, more and more people around the world tend to focus on what makes them different from one another and protect that identity against criticism and a free and open debate. The consequence of this development is that it’s cultures, ethnicities, nations and maybe even certain versions of history that get protection, not the individual, and the most important minority in any society is the individual.
Unfortunately this trend is going on all around the world today, and in fact, speech has never experienced so much regulation as it does now in the beginning of the 21st century.
When did this trend start? why did we end up in this situation?
You may be surprised but in fact it all started in Western Europe, the birthplace of the Enlightenment and the doctrine of religious toleration.
And how did it start?
It started in the 1990s, right after the fall of the Berlin Wall, with laws criminalizing Holocaust denial, and these laws are driven by what I would call a benign utopia, Europe’s dream of a world without hate. But as we know from history, when it comes to utopia, the first victim is always freedom. Every time we try to create it, a more perfect world.
In fact, these laws criminalizing denial of the Holocaust, they were passed with the best of possible intentions in order to protect the victims of the genocide of European Jewry during the Second World War.
In 2008 the European Union demanded that all member states pass these laws criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust or downplaying the importance of the Holocaust. Today these laws are the books in 13 member states in the European Union, and just two weeks ago the EU commission in charge of this field once again called on all European Union member states to pass these laws.
These laws are based on a specific reading of the events that led up to the Holocaust and triggered the Holocaust. It is basically saying that evil words will lead to evil deeds. That if you do not criminalize racist speech or incitement you will sooner or later have racist violence.
And if you allow people to deny crime against humanity, you may run the risk that it will repeat itself, it will happen again.
I think that is a problematic reading of the events leading up to the Holocaust, even though I acknowledge and I believe that there is a relationship between words and deeds, and anti-Semitic speech, anti-Semitic propaganda played on a visible role in the events leading up to the Holocaust.
But, in fact in Weimar Germany in the ’20s and ’30s you did have hate speech laws protecting Jews against anti-Semitic speech. If you take Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister of Adolf Hitler, he was taken to court many times by the Vice Police Director of Berlin, Bernhard Weiss, who was Jewish, and Goebbels basically lost all the cases.
And if you take, Julius Streicher, the editor and chief of Der Stürmer, the anti-Semitic magazine that was being published in the ’20s and ’30s, Julius Streicher went to jail twice for anti-Semitic speech. His magazine over the course of ten years was confiscated or taken to court 36 times. So there were laws on the books protecting Jews against verbal attacks, but they didn’t work.
And these laws criminalizing Holocaust denial, they are now being copied and have inspired other kinds of laws in other parts of the world where they do not have the same good intentions.
If you take Eastern Europe, in Eastern Europe the crimes of Communism seem far more present than the Holocaust, so Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and other Eastern European countries, they have passed laws criminalizing denial of the crimes of communism.
If you take the Ukraine, this Spring, passed four new laws, two of them criminalizing insult to the freedom fighters of Ukraine during the 20th century, which in fact also implies two groups that took part in the Holocaust. So when Western historians write critically about these two groups they may risk being arrested when they travel to Kiev.
The most far-reaching law in this respect was passed in Russia last year, and it is interesting that it was passed with the same reference to the Nuremberg trial after the Second World War as all the other anti-Holocaust denial laws in Europe. The Russian law basically says that it is a criminal offense to criticize the actions of the Soviet Union during the Second World War.
Which means that my good friend Antony Beevor, a British historian who wrote a very good book about the fall of Berlin in 1945 and about the crimes that Soviet Soldiers committed on their way to Berlin, he will not travel to Russia anymore because he may risk being arrested or getting into trouble.
You can get three years in prison for criticizing the policies of Stalin during the Second World War in Russia today. It is being done with the same logic as in Western Europe with Holocaust-denial laws. So I think that this is very problematic.
So what makes it difficult today to win the battle for free speech?
Of course there are many reasons, but today I will point to what I will say is the confusion and misunderstanding of fundamental concepts in a liberal democracy, and I will just name two.
The one is the relationship between tolerance and freedom.
Many people today believe that tolerance and freedom, that they are opposites, that there is a tension between tolerance and freedom and that we have to balance tolerance against freedom to make it possible to live together in peace. That is not the case if you look at it historically, after the wars of religion in Europe in the 16th and 17th century.
The states of Europe, the Protestants and the Catholics worked out a doctrine of religious tolerance that in fact grew out of the right to freedom of religion. The fact that Protestants had to accept that they would be living side-by-side with Catholics whom they despised and hated, and vice-versa.
So historically freedom and tolerance are two sides of the same coin, and the bigger the tension between these two concepts, the more a threat to the foundation of liberal democracies. So I have to, we have to reeducate ourselves about the close relationship between freedom and tolerance. There can be no freedom in society without society being able to tolerate opinions that the majority don’t like.
And freedom doesn’t make sense if it doesn’t imply a wide understanding of tolerance of opinions that we may despise and dislike. So the relationship between tolerance and freedom is one key concept that we have to reeducate ourselves about.
The other misunderstanding I believe, is about the relationship between words and deeds.
Many people today believe that, you know, words can be as violent and hurtful as deeds, and I agree that words can be hurtful, and words can incite from time to time, but if you look at history and the development of free speech, and the fight against censorship, the key distinction was the establishing of a distinction between words and deeds.
If you look at the key difference between free societies and un-free societies, it is exactly that free societies are characterized by clear distinction between words and deeds. It’s why dictatorships and un-free societies they erode that distinction.
In a dictatorship words are being perceived as if they were actions and therefore dissidents and critical voices are being silenced with reference to the fact that they are a threat to the peace of the public order, and so on and so forth. So by equating evil words and evil deeds we are in a way moving back to the time before the Middle Ages, in Europe where people were being burned at the stake for saying critical things about the Church, about God, about people of other faiths, and I don’t think that’s where we would like to go. I think that this is happening because it has become very popular to play the grievance card, that people think that they do have a right not to be offended. I will come back to that in a moment and explain why I think that is problematic, although I’m not in favor of going, you know, walking around and offending people all of the time. That’s not the point, it’s a matter of principle in a multicultural world.
So, what’s to be done, how do we move forward in this new globalized world, where technology and migration makes the world smaller and smaller?
I think basically there are two ways to go. One way is to say “if you respect my taboos, I respect yours”. If it’s a criminal offense to deny the Holocaust, it should also be a criminal offense to deny the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide and other kinds, other genocides throughout history. If we want to be consistent. If it’s a criminal offense to ridicule the prophet Mohamed, then it also should be a criminal offense to ridicule Jesus Christ or Buddha or Hindu gods and Moses and so on and so forth.
And if we want to be consistent in a secular democracy we will also have to protect non-religious ideas against ridicule and criticism, which would imply that this would also be a criminal offense to insult Karl Marx or Adam Smith or other philosophers and thinkers to whom groups of people do adhere.
As you can hopefully see from where the direction I’m moving towards, this will in the end lead to a tyranny of silence. It will lead to a situation if you have a right to criminalize things that you find offensive, then in the end, nobody will be able to say anything without somebody out there being offended, and having the right to shut you up.
I don’t think that is the right way to go, even though it may sound polite and nice on the surface, “If you respect my taboos, I respect yours”. The other way to go is to ask ourselves what are the minimal limitations that we need on speech in order to be able to live together, in peace in a global world?
I believe that the key limitation on speech should be incitement to violence.
No one should be allowed to call for the killing of Muslims or violence against Jews, or against those with red hair or soccer fans or whatever it is. That should be a criminal offense, and that should be the key limitation on speech.
Apart from that I would also be willing to support a narrow understanding of libel laws. I would also support a right to protection of privacy, but apart from that I think people should be allowed to say almost whatever they want. But this is counter-intuitive to the way many of us have been brought up, and the way we interact with one another in daily life.
This is what I had said before, that many people do believe that they have the right not to be offended, but I think that in a democracy, we have many rights. We have a right to freedom of expression, to freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement. We have a right to vote for different parties and candidates in elections.
But I think the only right we should not have in a democracy, is the right not to be offended. That is the right, that is the price we have to pay for enjoying all the benefits and good things of a democracy.
Unfortunately today, many politicians think that the best way to save the social peace is by putting new limitations on speech. Especially during the current situation in Europe, my concern is that politicians will react to this growing influx of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, and will be putting new limitations on speech.
But in fact, I find it logical, if you welcome a more diverse society, in terms of culture, ethnicity and religion, the logical consequence of that is that, there will also be more diversity of speech. Then when we become more different, we will also express ourselves in different ways, and because we believe in different things and we hold different values, there will be clashes of different opinions, of faiths and approaches to life in the public domain.
We should not be afraid of that, I think, but it’s not easy, I know. It’s going to be difficult and therefore I will end my remarks by a modest proposal.
Usually when a public servant, when they offend clients, their bosses sometimes send them to sensitivity training so they can learn to talk in a polite way. That may be good, but I think maybe more of us should also be sent to “insensitivity training” in the sense that we need to grow thicker skins in order to be able to live together in peace in a more diverse world and society.
The social media is being run by anti-free speech hacks……
Facebook censors anti-rape activist for linking to a Rebel video!
On Tuesday we told you about the European Union’s secret left-wing “anti-hate speech” deal with Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft.
And on Wednesday, our friend Ingrid Carlqvist uploaded a video to her Facebook page, a video co-produced by us and the Gatestone Institute. It’s one Swedish woman’s opinion, backed up with publicly available statistics, about rape culture in Europe.
But because the rape perpetrators in this case are Muslim migrants, Facebook and the European Union shut down Ingrid’s Facebook page.
She complained on Twitter. A Swedish news website reported on it. So Facebook put her page back up.
But remember, this EU censorship team was only one day old. Imagine if Ingrid’s Facebook page was deleted, her Twitter account shut down and the video deleted on YouTube all at once…
Tonight we talk about what happened with Ingrid Carlqvist herself.
In studio, my guest Tarek Fatah talks about his own extensive experience of being thrown in “Facebok” jail.
TWITTER AND FACEBOOK VOW TO ELIMINATE ‘HATE SPEECH’
Henceforth only far-Left and pro-jihad views will be allowed.
Could it soon be illegal to oppose jihad terror on the Internet?
AP reported that “the European Union reached an agreement Tuesday with some of the world’s biggest social media firms, including Facebook and Twitter, on ways to combat the spread of hate speech online.”
Not only Facebook and Twitter, but also YouTube and Microsoft, “have committed to ‘quickly and efficiently’ tackle illegal hate speech directed against anyone over issues of race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. The sites have often been used by terrorist organizations to relay messages and entice hatred against certain individuals or groups.”
Vera Jourova, whom AP identifies as “the EU commissioner responsible for justice, consumers and gender equality,” explained: “The internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech.” She added that the new rules would “ensure that public incitement to violence to hatred has ‘no place online.’” But incitement to violence isn’t all that the social media giants are planning to stamp out: Karen White, Twitter’s European head of public policy, declared: “We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow. However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”
It’s rich that the site would be accused of disseminating false news/distortions of the truth, YLE and other big media do that on a regular basis, and never apologize for it.
I only need to point to YLE itself in how it reported on the Jussi Halla-aho case, and continues to refer to the verdict (to smear) without qualifiers when it reports on Halla-aho in the English version of their site.
Finnish police have announced that they are working closely with prosecutors to investigate the operations of an alternative news site, MV Lehti, which stands accused of disseminating false information and promoting hate speech.
In a statement on the national police website, police said that they suspect that several articles on the website are baseless, distortions of the truth, or that they infringe copyright.
They have received dozens of complaints about the website, and are currently investigating cases of suspected copyright infringement, libel, aggravated defamation, fundraising crimes and gambling crimes.
The investigation is being co-ordinated by Helsinki police, and has required co-operation with foreign law enforcement agencies.
The site’s founder, Ilja Janitskin, is based in Spain.
Police are asking anyone who believes they may be a victim of crimes related to the website’s articles to contact them during May.
NOTE: Finland has it’s own versions of the National Enquirer that do engage in exactly what they are claiming against MVLehti. Also, since the site uses Jew hater, Juha Kärkkäinen’s material, that alone relegates the site to the trash bin.
What should scare you to death is the government dictating to you what is, and isn’t, ”correct speech”.
And increasingly, the government uses the word racism incoherently, like: Ikä rasisimi (age discrimination). Age is no more a race than Islam is, yet they’ll use the word racism in conjunction with anti-Islam criticism.
Education and Culture Minister Sanni Grahn-Laasonen will take the lead in a programme aimed at combating and preventing hate speech and racism.
The 10-point programme will involve measures such as training for teaching professionals, youth outreach and inter-faith dialogue.
“Hate speech and racism are absolutely things we should condemn. No one should have to live in an environment in which people openly deny others an equal place as a member of society. The mood in Finland has changed and that demands work,” Grahn-Laasonen said in a ministry release.
The programme will also involve emphasising media criticism as part of education and teaching. Municipal youth outreach programmes will also receive specialised assistance for the project, in a bid to prevent hate speech and promote equality.
The Ministry of Education and Culture will also fund education programmes to help young people learn to recognise and prevent racism and hate speech and to intervene in related incidents.
“Teaching professionals will especially be trained to engage in difficult discussions on issues such as hate speech, racist behaviour and signs of radicalisation,” the statement said.
Every single one of them should be forced to sit through Flemming Rose’s presentation in Helsinki, and multiple times.
#sananvastuuvala translates to #responsiblespeechoath
Union of Journalists # sananvastuuvala campaign brings together communicators who respect truth and human dignity. To participate you only need one posting in social media.
Freedom of speech is sometimes mistaken for the liberty to say anything without any consequences. However, freedom of expression involves responsibility for your own writings.
A responsible communicator respects truth and human dignity.
Now you can participate in responsible freedom of expression by emphasising the #responsiblespeechoath campaign on social media such as on Facebook or on Twitter.
The oath reads as follows:
I express myself by respecting human rights. Hate speech will not silence me. I take full responsibility for my words. #sananvastuuvala (#responsiblespeechoath)
Sharing the oath constitutes acceptance of responsibility in what you say, for example, in the media, on social networks or in discussion forums.
At the same time remind others of the importance of responsible communication.
You can challenge a colleague, friend or anyone you want to join. You do not have to work in the media industry to share the oath.
There are several options:
- You can share your oath as plain text as an update on Facebook, Twitter, etc.
- Alongside the oath publish a photo of yourself holding in your hand, a new copy of Journalist (6/2016, Published on Thursday 28.4.) In the centerfold will be a page, where it says #sananvastuuvala. If you do not have the magazine, you can print the hashtag # sananvastuuvala- website (attached to this text, different options), or write it on your own paper.
- You can also read the oath in the video at the same time, when you hold your hand for example. Sananvastuuvala # journalistic found on hashtag (The same oath reads on the second page).
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
This 1’s for German satirist Jan Böhmerma, who mocked Turkey’s Erdogan & who Merkel will allow to be prosecuted 4 it pic.twitter.com/hbosJs1jjv
— Bosch Fawstin (@BoschFawstin) April 17, 2016
Here’s my infamous rendition of the Turkish tyrant that got Erdogan’s attack dog lawyers into action (I can’t say anything else about it, due to 3rd party agreement):
h/t: Ingrid Carlqvist