Truth telling, in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary (for example: Islamized Europe, history of former Christian lands in the ME and Maghreb now Muslim) is considered illegal in Finland. Factual truths are not a defense, just ask Jussi Halla-aho. KGS
The part that was considered illegal by Kouvola Court of Appeals (hovioikeus):
US:”Unfortunately, with rampant Muslim immigration to Finland, there will also be an increase in genuine real racism, which will target especially the Jews, but also the native population and other ethnic groups. And on top of that, discrimination, unbearable arrogance and rude behavior, anger, women’s oppression, child mutilation (TT:FGM), sexual misconduct, persecution of minorities, rioting, flag burning, disturbances, drugs, looting, rape crimes, pedophilia, polygamy, child marriages, shame violence, ritual slaughter, whippings, stoning and other heinous crimes and completely screwed traditions and other phenomena. Eventually, even suicide bombings and terrorism. That is, if we do not dance exactly according to their tune.”
- [Päijät-Häme district court had thrown out the charges around a year ago, saying that the text Hirvisaari had published was simply him exercising his freedom of speech.]
Member of Parliament, James Hirvisaari fined for incitement against ethnic group
HS: What True Finns MP James Hirvisaari published in a blog post on 4 February 2010 at the UusiSuomi online newspaper service, has been given a verdict.
Kouvola Court of Appeal has convicted the True Finns MP, James Hirvisaari, with a fine for ethnic agitation. According to the court what he wrote in his blog was offensive to Muslims. The fine was equal to 1425 euros.
Päijät-Häme district court previously dismissed the indictment against Hirvisaari, because it didn’t deem the writings as disparaging. The district court’s view was that a politician has the right to criticize immigration policy.
The Court of Appeal decided the matter differently. According to it Hirvisaari’s web writings was sweeping and discriminatory, and specified a group of people as criminals.
The Court of Appeal took the view that the characterizing of an ethnic group as criminal isn’t within the limits of free speech as generalization and a provocation.