Hate Speech laws The Finns

FINNS MP CONVICTED OF HATE SPEECH FOR TELLING TRUTH ON ISLAM IN FINLAND…….

 

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

H/T: Vasarahammer

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.”

  • Hirvisaari convicted of hate speech

    [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.

True Finns Party parliamentary group chairman, Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner believes that they’ll take a position on the case, when the decision is final. Although this might still go to the Supreme Court.

28 Responses

    1. Hear, hear Henrik! Islam is an ideology, not one ethnic group, but what can we expect from our craven European elite??

  1. “So, Islam is now an ‘ethnic group’?”

    The Finnish word in the penal code is “kansanryhmä”, which includes ethnic, religious and other groups. In practice, the law only protects minorities. You can say anything about ethnic Finns or Christians. This has also been proven in court cases.

    Muslims are the kind of group the law refers to, even though muslims are not an ethnic group.

    1. ” Finland inviting your own beheading ” True. Finland deserves what it is getting, why the hell they had open door policy for muslims, now they will suffer of their wrong doings.

  2. Muhammad was the pedophilic, murderous master of a den of assassins who stole and raped their way through out all of Arabia in persuit of booty while using “god” as a justification for their sub-human behaviour.

    Don’t you wish you were protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution?

    Say what ever you want and let the people use their own power of reason to determine if you are truthful or a bigot. Screw “hate speech” laws.

  3. Hasn’t Finland learned lessons from Nazi occupied Norway? Political correctness is really out of hand there.

  4. I think his words were quite moderate. And he forgot to mention that they’re a load of useless inbred welfare scroungers.

    1. Eh Paris, then Hirvisaari would have had a good case against him.

  5. By the way, while conceding that Mohammed’s character was entirely composed of defects, I wish the half-informed would stop going on about the pedophilia thing. English King Richard II did the selfsame thing, marrying the 6-year old daughter of the King of France, as a dynastic maneuver. The same reason was clearly behind Mo’s marriage to Aisha, setting up Abu Bakr for the succession to the caliphate, a maneuver which the Shia branch of Islam is jolly upset about to this day.

    1. Hi Bill, I will continue to go on about Aisha the 9 year old rape victim because Mohamed’s character is emulated the Islamic world over, thereby dooming young girls to the very same fate. Raped as children. You point to one man in English culture who married a child, I see no Englishman using him as a supreme example of character to continue on with the practice, do you?

      1. I grant your point, but people tend to single out the pedophile slur as if it were more disgraceful than his massacres and general war crimes. Perhaps it is, but on numerical evidence Mo clearly preferred widders and captured Jewesses. Aisha turned out in later life to be quite manipulative, a skill which is usually fully fledged by 6 years old , as anyone with a daughter will attest. To call the consummation rape is guesswork unsupported by any evidence. As for your other point, English children fortunately have turned away from the lives of past kings and now model themselves on the more hygienic heroes provided by Marvel Comics and Hollywood. The Muslim Brotherhood perceive this as a danger to their culture too.

        1. Richard was forced to marry her on demand of her father, the King of France, to prevent a continuation of the so called 100 years war, and to gain some legitimate claim over England for France, naturally. Out of respect, Richard never had sex with her and sent her to live in Porchester Castle. The marriage was never consummated as Richard died before Isabella was old enough to do so.

          In contrast, the eager paedophile Mohammed, spent his 50 something years hammering away at Aishas little vagina, and could get no inspiration from Allah unless he was penetrating the child.

          Exactly what equivalence are you referring to?

          1. Obviously Abu Bakr wanted (or ordered) his daughter to marry Mo for dynastic reasons. His “reticence” is easily explained by the rewriting of history by the Aisha clique. Check out the asnad in Guillaume for how many stories originated from her. A lot of power was at stake, Mo had no sons, and a girl would just be a pawn in the game.

        2. Having sex with a six year old is rape, no mind is developed enough at 6 or 9 to make decision about sex, what it is, let alone marriage. That’s just not believable, its not guess work, just plain common sense, adults manipulate children all the time, getting them to do something that “will be in their own best interests”. No child can conceptualize what it is to have forced sex, let alone the long term ramifications. She was raped.

          1. In the United States, New York became the first state to institute child protection laws (1875) that made abuse against children a crime, and other states soon followed with similar laws. In 1974 the U.S. Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which encouraged remaining states to pass child protection laws and created the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.

            Before that it was, presumably legal and not defined as rape.

  6. May the Lord bless this man with the courage to continue to stand against the evil of Islam. Islam NEVER stops assaulting those who are not already under its control. The adherants of Islam are completely dedicated to our destruction, by any and all means possible.
    If we waiver, if we are not every inch as dedicated as they are, they will win.
    Freedom of speech MUST be restored. There used to be an axion in legal circles that “the truth is never libel”; it is lamentable that today the truth is no longer defensible in any court of law.
    No one has the right to not be offended.

  7. What if a group of people are criminals? What if 70% are criminals? 50%? 40%? Is it not permissible to generalise about such things?

    Is it possible to say the Mafia are a group of criminals even though not every Mafia member is active? Is that disparaging an “ethnic” group, as they are far more “ethnic” than Muslims?

    100% of Muslims think it is OK to follow the example of Mohammed. Mohammed was one of the most despicable men in history. Therefore, whilst not all Muslims actually imitate Mohammed and become rapists, thieves, murderers, torturers, slave traders, paedophiles etc., it is true that 100% of Mulims condone such activity against non-Muslims, or they would not be followers of Mohammed!

    1. Sadly shaunantijihad, no multiculturalist will ever admit to any figure, to do so would remove the fig-leaf they hide behind. They demand no generalization of minorities whatsoever all the while they point to “the public” as repeating old habits during times of economic down turn. They’re pathetic.

  8. The court has actually done him a favour – the outcry over truth suppression will hopefully be such that the True Finns may well win the next election by a landslide.
    As for muslims being unfairly demonised they have chosen to call themselves the followers of the evil cult of Islam so cannot cry foul when someone condemns them for their optional allegiance to Muhammad’s religon of hate (aside from fear of violence at the hands of their own muslim community).

  9. In the name of political correctness and being afraid of the Muslim population the courts fined a good politician who only discussed facts. Thus appeasing the muslims who will protest and cause violence.

Leave a 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.