Free Speech Jussi Halla-aho


Here’s a fact. Finland’s assistant district attorney, Jorma Kalske, and the Finnish legal system that employs him are not interested in the truth. They are solely interested in instituting faulty, politically correct government policies and will use any or all means at their disposal to do so. If it means lying, they will, as they did (under Kalske’s tutelage) in their trumped up case against Jussi Halla-aho earlier this year.

Halla-aho wrote one of the more eloquent essays highlighting the gross inequality and disparency  in how the state treats minorities and majority communities in Finland. Click here for a three part video where he describes his thinking in writing the blog post.

Now Kalske’s at it again, not being satisfied with a guilty verdict on (only) one of the charges, the mind numbingly named, “violating the sanctity of religion”, the assistant  D.A. wants to overturn the lower court’s dismissal of the incitement of a racial group charge. KGS
Jorma Kalske: “Truth is not a defense”

Halla-aho’s blog writing going before the Supreme Court

Assistant district attorney, Jorma Kalske, intends to appeal to the Supreme Court in the case of Jussi Halla-aho’s blog posting. Halla-aho has not yet indicated whether he will seek to appeal the case. Deadline for applying for authorization expires on Tuesday, 28.12.

The assistant district attorney is appealing the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision to dismiss charges against ethnic agitation.

The Helsinki municipal politician and MP candidate Jussi Halla-aho received at the end of October from the Court of Appeals a fine for violating the sanctity of religion.

According to the Helsinki Court of Appeals, Halla-aho had published an opinion on an Internet site, which was found to have defamed and discredited the sacred institutions of the Islamic communities.

Instead, the charge of inciting against an ethnic group were dismissed, because according to the Court of Appeal the writing as a whole was not considered to have exceeded the allowable exaggeration and provocation threshold.

One Response

  1. “exceeded the allowable exaggeration and provocation threshold.” How’s that for subjective law? Who gets to decide the ‘threshold?’ These laws are truly Orweillian. The people never know what is allowed or forbidden because only the state at any point in time can decide what speech has gone too far. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Leave a Reply to John Sobieski Cancel reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.