Englanninkielinen käännös Halla-ahon "Oikeudenkäynnistä"

[LW]

En saanut unta, joten hedelmättömän määlyämisen sijasta tein vaihteeksi jotain rakentavaa ja käänsin Halla-ahon uusimman englanniksi. Oikolukea voi ja parannusehdotuksia herättää - tuolla on muutamia kohtia, jotka tuntuivat suoraan käännettyinä varsin tönköiltä, joten muuntelin hieman sanamuotoja, pitäen kuitenkin mahdollisimman tarkasti kiinni alkuperäisestä tarkoituksesta. Jos joku keksii tarkempia ja kuitenkin sujuvia käännöksiä, mainitkaa. Mikäli teksti vaikuttaa sopivalta, sitä voi käyttää harkintansa mukaan.

THE TRIAL

Today I stood trial in Helsinki district court. Prosecutor was Simo Kolehmainen and judge was Jussi Sipola.

Johan Bäckman has written quite good description of the proceedings, so I shall not go over that side myself. Everyone present wondered at the strong presence of Prosecutor General Mika Illman in the trial, even if he wasn't physically present. Most of the questions the prosecutor asked from me were in one way or another about what I meant by saying this or that about Illman:

S.K: Why did you, in your essay "Few baits for Mika Illman" comment the punishment of Seppo Lehto, if you haven't read all the papers relating to the case?

J.H: It is quite normal that people comment on things they are not experts on.

S.K: What do you mean when you, at the end of essay, wish Mika Illman "a nice day"?

J.H: I don't wish to use the f-word, but this style can be called provocation.

In practice, Kolehmainen acted as the barrister of offended and provoked Illman. Formally Illman played no role in the process, but according to information I've received from police, he prodded them to examine everything I've written when it became clear that there was nothing in the crime report by Heli Järvinen (of Green Women) that would have been enough for even starting the judicial proceedings, let alone making an indictment.

Most of the time different sides spoke of different things. Kolehmainen attempted to prove that my sentences were offensive. I didn't dispute the offensiveness, but talked of my reasons for writing those sentences. According to Kolehmainen, my motive to offend was proved by amongst other things the fact that the sentences were bolded and I myself stated they were offensive. I asked of Kolehmainen that if he wished to present someone, would he include a statement "this is offensive"? Wouldn't that kind of water down the whole insult? I also mentioned that the Dictionary of Modern Finnish includes the words "negro" and "nigger", both bolded and referred to as offensive, and asked Kolehmainen if he thinks this proves that the dictionary uses the words "negro" and "nigger" with the intent to slander.

Kolehmainen presented the court with my essays "Comments about A-Talk show", "My apologies" and "Shortly about the charge" as additional evidence of my intent to offend. I did find this a little amusing since - had I remembered - I would have presented the very same essays as evidence for the defense. Kolehmainen caused a general burst of laughter by stating that he doesn't think "My apologies" is a genuine apology.

It was also somewhat interesting that the proceedings were held in a tiny hall, even though considerable interest in the case was propably expected.

Media articles have been collected in the MediaWatch-blog. Ilta-Sanomat has again had little troubles in choosing its headlines. Possibly the reporter was angry since there wasn't room for him in the hall.

I thank everyone who came over from nearby and further away, and those that called and wrote during the day, for their support! Below is my own statement in text form. Transcription of prosecutor's statements should be finished in some time.

* * *

The foundation of my text is the newspaper Kaleva's primary editorial from 20.5.2008. It included the following part:

"It is indisputable that Finland is one of Western Europe's most violent countries, and that it is inextricably related to alcohol use. Killing people while intoxicated is a national, maybe even genetic characteristic."

Many people, myself included, thought that this kind of argument is not only absurd, but also highly offensive. The editorial was reported to The Council for Mass Media in Finland, which however refused to do anything about it. The secretary of Council, Nina Porra, commented on the decision this way:

"Writer seems to refer to studies where binge drinking has been found to be a special characteristic of Finnish alcohol culture. Intoxication and violence has also been proved to be connected. The writer doesn't present the genetic background as a fact, but simply as her own supposition."

The Office of the Prosecutor General also refused to take any action against newspaper Kaleva, even if crimes of incitement are part of its domain.

In order to prove that such arguments are highly offensive, I turned the newspaper Kaleva's sentence into parody where "Finns" were replaced by "Somalis". My hypothesis was that Somalis are under special protection of media and officials, and an argument that is permissible to present about Finns becomes nonpermissible when it is about Somalis. My own version was as follows:

"Robbing passer-bys and living as parasites on tax money is the national, maybe even genetic charasteristic of Somalis."

In order to make fun of The Council for Mass Media in Finland I mentioned in the text that I present this argument as supposition, not as a fact. In addition I proved that by using crime statistics, the argument about Somalis can be proved equally well as Kaleva's argument about Finns.

I emphasize that unlike the writer of newspaper Kaleva's primary editorial, I didn't present my own, offensive argument as my opinion, but used it to criticise and insult double standards. Factually speaking, and considering the mechanisms of evolution, the mere thought of living as a parasite with tax funds or killing people while intoxicated being a genetic characteristic of some population is insane.

I note that the criminal law's statute about incitement against national group doesn't put different groups on inequal positions. It doesn't state that it is permissible to slander one group, but not another. In addition, the sixth article of Finnish constitution states: "All people are equal before the law." I interpret this as meaning that every ethnic group is also equal before the law. In my opinion the equality means that law doesn't just equally restrict the behaviour of every people, but also protects everyone with equal force.

Therefore: Even if I had presented the argument about Somalis as my opinion and not as demonstrative material, the fact that an indictment was made against me for my proposition concerning Somalis but not against newspaper Kaleva for its proposition concerning Finns, would be in conflict with the equality section of the constitution. However, in this case this is irrelevant, since - as stated - the intent to offend mentioned in the charge is lacking. This case is comparable to accusing the textbook on history of Nazi propaganda, since it demonstrates anti-Semitic arguments once presented by Nazis.

Another part mentioned in the charge is as follows:

"Prophet Muhammed was a pedophile and Islam a religion that sanctifies pedophilia, therefore a pedophile religion."

This sentence is related to discussion where I criticize the idea of the subjective offensiveness of some sentence being a sufficient criteria for its judicial offensiveness. In other words, if some group is offended by sentence X, sentence X is illegal irrespective of whether it is true or not. In my opinion, stating of facts cannot and must not be criminal, even if they offend someone. This is also a problem of equality. For example, a Muslim is offended by criticism of his religion far more easily than an average Christian. If subjective offensiveness suffices as the elements of crime, law protects a Muslim with greater force than it protects a Christian.

My sentences about Muhammed and Islam weren't opinions, but inescapably logical conclusions based on known facts. I don't use the word "pedophile" as psychopathological concept, but in its popular meaning of a person having sex with children. The traditional Muslim knowledge, hadith literature, tells that Muhammed had sex with his wife Aisha when she was nine years old. A nine year old is seen as a child today, and physically she was a child in 7th century, no matter what her judicial status was. Therefore, if Muhammed had sex with Aisha and Aisha was a child, Muhammed had sex with a child.

That Muhammed is a holy figure to Muslims cannot make him immune to criticism in West, especially if criticism is based on indisputed facts. In addition to being a holy figure to Muslims, he was also a historical person, warleader, politician and a demagogue, who must be a permissible target of criticism just like other important historical figures.

What does it mean that "Islam is a religion that sanctifies pedophilia, therefore a pedophile religion"? Muhammed's way of life, or sunna, is in every respect exemplary according to Islam. I quote professor Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila's Pocket Dictionary of Islam from year 2001:

"Sunna is a binding example for Muslims, and the responsibility of every pious Muslim is to follow the example of prophet Muhammed. Prophet Muhammed was [...] protected from errors (ma sum), so nothing in his behaviour was wrong or not intended by God."

In addition, professor Hämeen-Anttila states in his Handbook of Islam from year 2004:

"During his life, Prophet didn't act solely based on contemporary situation, but also keeping in mind the future. The details of Prophet's life were meant to be imitated forever by Islamic community."

Islam holds everything Muhammed did as exemplary and according to God's will, including having sex with his child wife. Therefore it is justifiable to say that Islam sanctifies pedophilia. It must be noted that I am speaking of Islam as a doctrine, not of Muslims, most of whom do not live according to Islam's demands. However, this is far more than a theoretical problem. Pedophiliac practices in Islamic world and the Muslim communities of West are justified precisely on prophet Muhammed's example. I remind you that last winter the imam of Finland's Islamic Community, Khodr Chehab, bragged in public about having wed 14-year old children into Islamic marriage, and thought that 11 years is suitable age of marriage for girls.

I refer here to some decisions made by The Office of Prosecutor General.

First is from March 2005. The subject was a newspaper article by a certain pastor, "White and Black Devil", where according to Deputy Prosecutor General, pope and the holy institutions of Catholic and Orthodox churches were criticised harshly and occasionally mockingly. The text was studied as incitement against national group and disturbance of religious worship. Deputy Prosecutor General stated that there was no reason to suspect crime in the matter, and amongst other things, justified it as follows:

"The freedom of speech doesn't merely cover such facts and thoughts that are gladly received, that are thought harmless or regarded without interest. Freedom of speech also covers such messages that offend, shock and disturb the state or some of its national groups."

During year 2006, Suomen Sisu published on its internet pages the controversial Danish Muhammed cartoons. There was an investigation request and a preliminary investigation, but the process ended during the June of said year, when prosecutor Kalske made the decision to not raise charges. Kalske justified it like this:

"It cannot be assumed that the suspects acted in order to offend the religious sensibilities of people that the law refers to. On the contrary I consider it credible that suspects meant to make a kind of objection against the public policy."

My case and the case of Suomen Sisu are highly similar, though with the difference that in the case of my text, the lack of motivation to offend isn't a matter of interpretation, but completely obvious from the context. The reason for presenting the sentences has been clearly spelled out, even in the title.

I point out that in the prosecution order, prosecutor Kalske has completely disregarded the explanation I gave during preliminary investigation about my motives. As I see it, he has violated his official responsibility to objectively consider the pros and cons of initiating the prosecution. It is the responsibility of prosecutor to justify why he thinks my argument about Islam and Muhammed has been presented in order to offend, and not as a protest against public policy, as I argue.

I'll refer to still one decision of The Office of Prosecutor General, from January 2009. Religious community called Word and Praise had made a crime report about web site called Bloodgroup. On its front page it stated that "The intent of Bloodgroup is to insult Word and Praise Congregation and religion in general." The report was about disturbance of religious worship. I quote some of Bloodgroup's material:

"Christ. We'd fuck Christ. Jesus Christ was a faggot. What does Bible say about having sex with kids? It's the only way to enjoy sex."

According to prosecutor Kalske, there was no propable reason to suspect disturbance of religious worship.

As we see, the cases that have been quoted and their justifications are in roaring conflict with this prosecution. This is violating my right to equal treatment before the law, and is pure abuse of official power.

In the end I point out, that as much as my opinions have made reporters and politicians cry, the text "Few baits for Mika Illman" has received no attention whatsoever before this process. No one has been offended or incited, excluding prosecutor Kalske. This is because everyone who has read the essay has understood what it is about. That it is criticism pointed at media and officials. It is only prosecutor Kalske who has turned the comment about Somalis offensive by detaching it from its context. Detached from its context it is precisely as offensive as the newspaper Kaleva's primary editorial which it parodied.

* * *

You probably guess what the deputy chairman of Finland's PEN, freedom of speech specialist Jarkko Tontti, thinks about this. The excuses and the strawmen are approaching a desperate level.

[reino]

Oikein hyvä.

Mutta "hyvää päivänjatkoa" on tietenkin "Have a nice day", kuten jo legendaarinen pilapiirrostaiteilijakin videollaan totesi. 

[Motor City Contexti]

Bite sanan tilalle ainakin lure. Muutenkin, jos käännöksen tarkoitus on osoittaa Englannin kieliselle mailmalle, millainen oikeuskäytäntö ja miten on sanavapauden laita Suomessa olisi parempi, jos käänöksen tekisi joku joka on perehtynyt länsimaiseen oikeuskäytäntöön mieluiten Amerikkalainen ihmisoikeus juristi joka ymmärtäisi myös Suomea. Samalla tulisi hoideltua tämä Vihreän puoluetoimiston jatke Suomalainen PEN.

[Lemmy]

Muute hyvä, mut JSN on enklanniksi "Council for Mass Media in Finland", selvennykseksi voi laittaa (self-regulatory board)

[reino]

Bite sanan tilalle ainakin lure. Muutenkin, jos käännöksen tarkoitus on osoittaa Englannin kieliselle mailmalle, millainen oikeuskäytäntö ja miten on sanavapauden laita Suomessa olisi parempi, jos käänöksen tekisi joku joka on perehtynyt länsimaiseen oikeuskäytäntöön mieluiten Amerikkalainen ihmisoikeus juristi joka ymmärtäisi myös Suomea. Samalla tulisi hoideltua tämä Vihreän puoluetoimiston jatke Suomalainen PEN.

Muuten hyvä mutta lure tilalle Flying Lure. Eikä siinä vielä kaikki...

Tai sitten voisi ihan vain noudattaa samaa linjaa kuin KGS, joka käytti otsikkoa A Couple of Baits for Mr. Ill-Man.

http://tundratabloidsextra.blogspot.com/2009/05/couple-of-baits-for-mrillman.html

Tai ehkä Motor City Contexti voisi hoitaa käännökset. Hänellähän on selvästikin Täydellinen Suomen kielen osaaminen sekä Amerikkalaisen ihmis Oikeus juristin ymmärtämys.

Lisäksi haluaisin esittää Amerikkalaiselle Ihmis oikeus juristille joka tekee käännökset seuraavat vähimmäis vaatimukset:
- enemmän tohtorintutkintoja kuin Jussilla ja Hankamäellä yhteensä
- isommat tissit kuin Veralla
- alhaisempi rasvaprosentti kuin Ellilällä
- nätimpi huivi päässä kuin Hankamäellä

[Virkamies]

Muutama tekninen huomautus terminologiasta. En puuttunut tyyliisi tai mahdollisiin kielioppivirheisiin.

In practice, Kolehmainen acted as the attorney of offended and provoked Illman.

Käyttäisin sanaa barrister attorneyn sijaan, mutta jos tarkoitus on puhua amerikkalaista englantia käyttäen, niin tuo kelvannee. Makuasia.

let alone making a charge.

Sanan charge korvaisin sanalla indictment.

and "Shortly about the charge" as additional proof of my intent to offend.

As an additional evidence. Proofs for the defense mielestäni kannattanee kannattanee vaihtaa myös evidence muotoon.

Translitteration of prosecutor's statements

Transcription, ei litteraatio.

* * *

State Prosecutor's Bureau also refused

The Office of the Prosecutor General on täsmällinen termi.

In order to make fun of Council of Public Word

The Council for Mass Media in Finland on täsmällinen termi.

I note that the criminal law's statute about incitement against national group doesn't put different groups on inequal positions.

Inequal ei ole tarpeeksi täsmällinen, käyttäisin sanaa inequitable tässä kontekstissa. Equity ja equality tosin menevät hieman ristiin ihmisten mielissä jo anglosaksien itsensäkin joukossa. Equality ranskan vallankumouksen terminologian johdosta toki yleisesti viitannee sosiaaliseen tasa-arvoon.

Therefore: Even if I had presented the argument about Somalis as an opinion and not as demonstrative material, raising charges about my argument of Somalis, but not newspaper Kaleva's argument of Finns, is in conflict with the equality article of constitution.

as my opinion... , the fact that an indictment was made against me for my proposition concerning Somalis but not against newspaper Kaleva for its proposition concerning Finns, would be in conflict with the equality section of the constitution.

stating of facts cannot and must not be illegal,

Criminal tässä.

as the criteria of crime,

Englannistaisin rikoksen tunnusmerkit elements of crime sanoilla.

according to Deputy State Prosecutor,

Kalske on Deputy Prosecutor General. Kuusimäki on Prosecutor General. Illman ja muut vähäisemmät heput ovat State Prosecutor nimikkeellä töissä.

[AN]

Oikolukea voi ja parannusehdotuksia herättää

Joitain juttuja, jotka pistivät nopeasti lukaisten silmään:

S.K: Why did you, in your essay "Few baits for Mika Illman" commented the punishment of Seppo Lehto, if you haven't read all the papers relating to the case?

commented -> comment

I did think this a little amusing since - had I remembered - I would have presented the very same essays as proofs for the defense.

think -> find

You propably guess what the deputy chairman of Finland's PEN, freedom of speech specialist Jarkko Tontti, thinks about this. The excuses and the strawmen are approaching desperate level.

probably, ja "a desperate level". Muutenkin (lähinnä määräisiä) artikkeleita taitaa puuttua jonkin verran.

[Motor City Contexti]

Miten kääntäisitte englanniksi  ilta-sanomissa esiintyvän sanan sanavapausrikos. Radiossa oli luonnehdittu  Halla-ahon kirjoituksia "yleisvaarallisiksi" miltäköhän se kuulostaisi englanniksi.

reinolle sen verran, että aika väsynyttä muumeilua, ja moneen kertaan kaluttua. Varsinkin kuin en enään mitenkään pysty puolustautumaan. Eli kaada itsellesi vain.

[LW]

Kiitoksia palautteesta. Käännöstä on muokattu sitä silmällä pitäen, ja lisäksi korjasin muutamia typoja ja siistin muutenkin kirjoitusasua.

Pitäydyin termissä inequal inequitablen sijasta, sillä ko. sanat tosiaan menevät syntyperäisilläkin englannin puhujilla helposti sekaisin, ja ensimmäinen on huomattavasti selkeämpi ei-natiiveille. En myöskään korvannut sanaa bait lurella, sillä vaikka jälkimmäinen on toki teknisesti tarkempi käännöstä, anglot käsittääkseni käyttävät sanaa bait tässä kontekstissa.

Käännöksen tarkoitus oli kääntää Halla-ahon kirjoitus mahdollisimman sujuvasti ja tarkasti. Toki olisi erinomaista, jos joku englantia ja suomea erinomaisesti taitava ammattilaisjuristi kirjoittaisi artikkelin suomalaisesta oikeuskäytännöstä kansainväliselle yleisölle.

[RP]

Miten kääntäisitte englanniksi  ilta-sanomissa esiintyvän sanan sanavapausrikos. Radiossa oli luonnehdittu  Halla-ahon kirjoituksia "yleisvaarallisiksi" miltäköhän se kuulostaisi englanniksi.

abuse of freedom of speech, causing danger to the public?

Edit: Hesarihan jo tarjosikin esimerkin yleisvaarallisesta uutisoinnista: http://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,12109.0.html

[b_kansalainen]

Käännöksen tarkoitus oli kääntää Halla-ahon kirjoitus mahdollisimman sujuvasti ja tarkasti. Toki olisi erinomaista, jos joku englantia ja suomea erinomaisesti taitava ammattilaisjuristi kirjoittaisi artikkelin suomalaisesta oikeuskäytännöstä kansainväliselle yleisölle.

Joo, olisi erinomaista, jos joku sen erinomaisesti kääntäisi :-) Mutta pääasia toki on, että asia välittyy.

Luin vain jonkin matkaa alusta alkuperäiseen verraten, mutta totean silti seuraavaa. Kääntämisessä pitäisi enemmän miettiä, mitä alunperin on haluttu sanoa kuin kääntää suoraan sanasta sanaan, jos haluaa luonnollisen kuulloista käännöstä aikaiseksi. Sitten pitäisi olla johdonmukainen tyylin suhteen. "I shall not" on hyvin virallista kieltä ja "if he wasn't" on puhekieltä kirjoitettuna. "I shall not" olisi puhekielessä "I won't". Sanonnat pitäisi valita johdonmukaisesti joko englismin tai amerikanismin mukaisesti. Artikkelivirheitä, pilkkuvirheitä... englanninkielessä kirjoitetaan tiettyjä sanoja kapitaalilla suomesta poiketen jne.

Esimerkiksi "Johan Bäckman has written quite good description" -> "Johan Bäckman has written a quite good description".

Siinäpä sitä pilkunviilausta.

[MW]

Miten kääntäisitte englanniksi  ilta-sanomissa esiintyvän sanan sanavapausrikos. Radiossa oli luonnehdittu  Halla-ahon kirjoituksia "yleisvaarallisiksi" miltäköhän se kuulostaisi englanniksi.

reinolle sen verran, että aika väsynyttä muumeilua, ja moneen kertaan kaluttua. Varsinkin kuin en enään mitenkään pysty puolustautumaan. Eli kaada itsellesi vain.

Huomio "yleisvaarallisuuden" hirmuisesta uhkaavuudesta hyvä.

Muutoin, enkä haasta riitaa, enkä edes palaa tähän muumeiluasiaan, mutta: saat(te?) mitä tilaat(te?).

Hyvää jatkoa, ja kirjoitellaan taas.

[LW]

Päivitetty käännös lähetetty Gates of Viennaan. Kiitos vielä kaikille palautetta antaneille - tämä oli ensimmäinen tekemäni suomi-englanti käännös, ja kiitos teidän oppirahoja ei tarvitse maksaa aivan niin paljon.

[Sikanez]

Päivitetty käännös lähetetty Gates of Viennaan. Kiitos vielä kaikille palautetta antaneille - tämä oli ensimmäinen tekemäni suomi-englanti käännös, ja kiitos teidän oppirahoja ei tarvitse maksaa aivan niin paljon.

Voisiko tuon Gates of Viennan osoitetta kertoa?

[reino]

Kiitos vielä kaikille palautetta antaneille - tämä oli ensimmäinen tekemäni suomi-englanti käännös...

Jos tosiaan näin on, niin käännöksen taso oli erinomaisen yllättävän hyvä. Olen nähnyt huomattavasti huonompia tekstejä kaikkia kieli täydellisesti osaavien seitsemän meren ja kaikkien lakien tohtoreiden kirjoittamana.

Jos vielä tulee unettomia öitä, niin kysele privalla Veikko Suvannolta lisähommia tähän liittyen. Saattaisi olla, että apu kelpaisi.

[LW]

Voisiko tuon Gates of Viennan osoitetta kertoa?

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

Ehdottomasti lukemisen arvoinen blogi, vaikka välillä etenkin kommenttipuolella mennään minun makuuni turhan pitkälle "islam raiskaa vauvoja likaisilla heroiinineuloilla!!1!" -linjalle.

Jos tosiaan näin on, niin käännöksen taso oli erinomaisen yllättävän hyvä. Olen nähnyt huomattavasti huonompia tekstejä kaikkia kieli täydellisesti osaavien seitsemän meren ja kaikkien lakien tohtoreiden kirjoittamana.

Jos vielä tulee unettomia öitä, niin kysele privalla Veikko Suvannolta lisähommia tähän liittyen. Saattaisi olla, että apu kelpaisi.

Kiitoksia, ja pidänpä tuon mielessä.

[Sikanez]

Voisiko tuon Gates of Viennan osoitetta kertoa?

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

Ehdottomasti lukemisen arvoinen blogi, vaikka välillä etenkin kommenttipuolella mennään minun makuuni turhan pitkälle "islam raiskaa vauvoja likaisilla heroiinineuloilla!!1!" -linjalle.

Blogi näyttää hyvältä, mutta tekstiä Halla-ahosta en nähnyt.

[domokun]

Blogi näyttää hyvältä, mutta tekstiä Halla-ahosta en nähnyt.

Toimitettu ryhmä-blogi, kaikki mitä lähetetään ei aina mahdu mutta useasti menee jonnekkin muulle sivustolle tai blogiin johon tekijät ovat yhteydessä. Toi käännös päätyi Europenewsiin.