Vastaus Nicolai Sennelsille: haastattelun kritiikki *English Only!*

[I Work in Asylum System]

NICOLAI SENNELS: AMONG CRIMINAL MUSLIMS
Critique and Commentary by Kiko Kennels
_________________________________________

NOTE: comments to this thread in English only. A Finnish translation of the interview can be found here:

http://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,20165.0.html


This is a comment-under-quote critique of Sennels' interview, inspired by someone who asked for the reasons I find Sennels a pseudo psychologist. I apologize for a lot of repetition, sporadic side-tracks, ridiculously complicated sentences, some simplicities, satiric or sarcastic comments and harmless generalizations to make my point as clear as possible. This is not supposed to be an academic reply, but my initial thoughts when reading this interview late in the evening. I wish to point out as well, that I am not a fully fledged academic yet myself, being just a Master's student on my final year, but have researched and worked in the area for some years. I'm sure I have omitted something, or have not clarified clearly enough. Sorry for this. Hope you'll get some sense out of my text.  

Nicolai, can you give a short version of your life story?

I was born in 1976 and grew up far out in the countryside in Denmark. During my studies in Copenhagen I worked as a social worker with teenagers. I also worked as a semi-professional rock musician for a couple of years while studying psychology at the university. I have worked with troubled youngsters all my adult life. It has always been very easy for me to like them, connect to them and help them. I have developed new kinds of therapies, especially for Muslims, and my methods have been mentioned positively in several professional magazines, newspapers and on the radio.

The professionality of this writer seems to me unproven. I have not been able to find any concrete evidence of the positive feedback given by established academics or professionals. In fact, all references I have found to this fellow seem to link directly or indirectly to conservative right-wing people, blogs, websites and magazines. Those few outside extreme political right seem to view him with ridicule. Whatever he considers as 'professional' media is perhaps 'professional' in terms of politics, but very little in terms of psychology or social sciences.

Besides, as an off-hand note, as far as I understand, his degree is an 'authorized candidate psychologist', which in Denmark means only 1y of studies in psychology, and 1 year of work practice. Do you think one could be a professional in psychology in one year? - When other people study from 5-7 years to become psychologists or psychiatrists? This already should show how not everything the guy says should be swallowed – of course not all Doctors and Professors are necessarily right either, but argumentation is essentially a 'skill' and a 'method' developed and learned especially in higher education – which is why both Sennels himself and most of his readers – sorry but it's true – lack the 'skill'. Of course this should not be held against him, as only his arguments in themselves should be the target. I merely wish to point out that many people claim to be professionals, but it takes quite a bit to actually be one. How old is the guy anyway?

When did your interest in integration and Islam start?

Ten years ago we had a horrible case in Denmark. Four young Muslim boys dragged a young woman by her hair all through the biggest shopping street – Strøget – in Copenhagen and tried to rape her. Even though she was screaming and it was clear that something was terribly wrong, nobody did anything to stop it. Imagine that: a young woman being dragged through the most busy street in Denmark – with lots of bystanders – and nobody tries to stop it. Not actively trying to stop a bad thing happening – even if you risk that your collegues, friends or family think critically about you or you may get yourself a blue eye – is probably the worst thing one can do to one's own self-confidence, personal ethics and humanistic values. If we are only willing to help the weak when it is without any risk for ourselves, we are useless cowards. Today this help is not so often physical – even though all men should learn to fight, either in martial arts or in the territorial army

Even though this does not relate directly to the topic and is a very personal standpoint, I cannot help but wonder the background of this statement. This by no means should be taken as granted; I wonder if this does not correlate nicely with another extremism – absolute pacifism. Not that I don't value martial arts in general - did them myself at some point - but I generally dislike anything absolute and extreme.

– but intellectual. Writing letters to newspapers, blogs, telling one's honest thoughts when the talk on Islam or immigration starts in the lunch break at work – all this is very helpful. Being passive while women are treated bad and failed integration threatens to drag down our cultural values and welfare societies is failing to live up to our responsibility as humans. Especially men should take their role as protector of women very seriously.

Anyway, as most other Danish, I was shocked about the rape story. Both the brutality and the fact that nobody helped that poor woman was devastating to me.

I remember many years back an incident in the central railway station in Helsinki, where a white, Finnish born woman was raped by a white, Finnish born man – behind a statue in the very middle of the square, late, but a busy Friday (?) night. The woman had screamed for help – no one had come to rescue. Another event reminded me of a woman (?) who in the middle of the same square, daytime, attempted to stab her boyfriend in a crazy fit – she actually succeeded to stab him a few times before anyone (guard?) came to stop her. They were native Finnish. How many times has Sennels himself ignored similar events, when he suddenly 'wakes up' as soon as this brutality is done by a Muslim?

Before this incident my ears were closed to those who critizised Islam and Muslim immigration but from then on I started listening with a more serious attitude. At that time I was still sure that successful integration was just a matter of time and that social injustice was the main responsible for the ethnic tensions. I was also too nervous about getting criticized to share my worries with others.

Doesn't sound he really believed in what he said he believed before, if he had 'worries he couldn't share.' But anyway...

Today things are different: I no longer vote for the Social Democrats. I also no longer care what people think of my opinions about Muslim culture etc. I am also no longer passive - I feel a responsibility for defending suppressed Muslim women, our freedoms and for showing people that we can say exactly what we think about Islam and Muslim immigration.

By the way, just as a footnote: it accidentally turned out that three of these four Muslim boys were sentenced to live for a period at the institution where I worked at that time. Confused, insecure young men with the too typical Muslim male chauvanistic attitude and strong victim mentality and no real values in life except getting as much as they could with as little effort as possible.

While the previous sentence could be understood in two ways; as associating all afore-mentioned factors as 'typical Muslim', or merely describing general victim mentality or value-vacuum, I feel the need to point out a couple of things;

'Typical Muslim male chauvinism' – although undeniably present in Islamic societies, let us not forget the presence of male chauvinism in most non-Muslim cultures, such as; Hindus, Latinos, Pacific Ocean nations, many Asian nations (incl. traditional Confucian traditions), and, lo and behold, the West! In fact, through my travels around the world I have witnessed in my own eyes, how some females of some latino nations have less freedom and rights than some Muslim women of some Islamic countries, and many traditions associated most often with Muslims can be found in other cultures (e.g. forced marriages of young girls are still practiced in some parts of South America, as of course in the Pacific, India, China, etc., and FGM itself preceded Islam and is also done by e.g. animists, etc). And, not wishing to offend any latinos or hindus, I have felt much more unsafe, and have experienced much more mental and physical breaches of personal space, in e.g. India and South America, than in those Muslim countries where I have traveled. Those friends or colleagues of mine having lived in the worst parts of the Middle East, generally feel the same. So I would, in no circumstances, associate chauvinism solely with Islam, or in any way more integrated into Islam than into many other cultures.

Also, maybe you would like to know that Islam prohibits forced marriage of girls. – this does not mean of course that it's not extremely common, and unfortunately so, but don't mistake a tradition that preceded the Prophet as the words of himself, when Quran actually prohibits forced marriages:

"No father or mother or any close relation can force his/her children to marry any one against their free will and consent"
"No female whether a widow or divorcee will be forced to marry any one unless her express and categorical consent has been freely taken and in the same way a woman not previously married can never be forced to marry anyone unless her free consent and permission is taken"
Source: Sahih Al-Bukhari

The point is that there is no 'Muslim culture'. There is 'Somali culture', 'Ethiopian culture', 'Saudi culture', 'Malay culture', and within these cultures, many other subcultures. Traditions and tribal customs are deeply integrated into many of these culture's Islamic practices, but it is not Islam itself – and not all Muslims either. Again, Sennels' experiences are limited to only a couple of these different Muslim 'cultures'.

I will repeat this many times, but Muslims are not only 'one' culture; they hold a variety of cultures, traditions, subgroups, identities, languages, histories.... Just like Western nations. The traditions of one Muslim group – e.g. Somalis from Mogadishu – varies greatly from others – Saudis, or Muslims in Indonesia, Uighurs in China, etc. etc. Would you say that Italians are like Danish? Or that Mexicans are like Peruvians? Of course not!

...if Sennels were against some of these groups, I would take him more seriously (probably not...), but as he is declaring against all Muslims and the Muslim Culture, I find his generalizations ridiculous. A professional of Muslim youth, who knows nothing about Islam?? – even less than a post-grad like me!

'Strong victim mentality' – although I agree with this from first-hand experience, let me give a perspective on this, before anyone hurries to associate this too strongly on 'Muslim immigrants'; victim mentality is common among most – or all - marginalised groups, whether it be non-Muslim refugees, Romas, Russians in Finland, Samis, drug abusers, alcoholics, criminals..... and yes, almost all have some degree of victim mentality! Have you not heard an alcoholic uncle excuse his addiction by blaming the society? How is it in any way surprising, that the most marginalized people in Finland – black asylum seekers from Muslim countries traumatized by a long chain of tragic life events – have a strong victim mentality?

'No real values...etc' – this sounds like my two brothers, in capital letters (don't tell me 'oh but your brothers haven't done this and this'... as you have no idea!)! Come on, Sennels is a psychologist for disturbed children, and how many of them are not like he is describing?! Again; not only are we talking here about young people in general, we are also talking of children – you know, like Little John or Little Tao - with severe problems. I just want to remind everyone not to associate this story to Muslim background per se, as the Muslim identity the boys carry is just one of very many different identities (not the least important being war-children!) – use your imagination, I'm sure you can come up a few on your own!

Tell us about your conflict with the municipality of Copenhagen.

Well, after working for several years with both Danish and Muslim children and teenagers, it was very clear to me that there are certain very deep psychological differences between these two cultures. These differences are without doubt so deep that Muslims will have to leave many of their core values behind if they are to integrate in our societies and feel Danish, Finnish, German, etc.

This I will not deny; integration / assimilation always entails a certain degree of change in one's values – whether it be 'our' values or 'their' values! Whether these are core values or not, depends on the person; one's core value might be 'love', another's 'dignity', (whatever a 'core value' even means...) but this is not necessarily linked to religion or tradition – although in many cases it is.
...Yet in this thought pattern I find a couple of problems:

'if they are to integrate...' – implies only a one-way model of integration; they come into our 'bubble'. Of course it is very problematic to see integration as only a one way street; rather, the bubbles should 'merge', or the horizons 'overlap' to some extent. I do not believe people have the skill, or even the will, to drop their values to the basket like candy wraps. 'Change' in this respect would probably mean more something like changes in priorities – something the receiving country also has to do to make integration possible.

'to feel Danish, Finnish...' – this is a matter of opinion, but knowing first hand many people with two, three, even four nationalities, the way these people answer to the question 'where are you from', varies greatly – independently of the country of origin. I mean, an Indonesian living in Australia for five years already feels more Australian than Indonesian. A Finnish having lived in South Africa all her life doesn't think of herself as Finnish – and doesn't speak the language. An Ethiopian born in Sweden says he is Ethiopian – an Eritrean in Italy for 10 years says he is Italian. An Assyrian with a good self-confidence answers that 'I'm an Assyrian born Muslim grown up in Sweden and living in Malta – you choose!'. The point is, integration is not necessarily about 'feeling' anything (in terms of nationalities). This should not be a goal, or it becomes a self-imprisoning value, something that might end up preventing integration rather than supporting it. Different concepts should always be put to question and revised if needed.

As a psychologist with special knowledge about criminality and foreigners I was invited by Copenhagen's mayor of integration to participate in a conference on integration at the city hall. The discussion was about criminal foreigners, foreigners and integration, foreigners and terror, foreigners and parallel societies, etc. I got irritated about the way the discussion went, because everybody generalized all foreigners as if they came from the same culture.

I find it quite amusing that Sennels himself does exactly the same – generalizes all Muslims as if they came from the same 'culture'!

I argued that the main part of the problematic foreigners have Muslim background and that we should discuss the meaning of culture when trying to find causes and solutions.

Sennels doesn't really seem to be discussing it either. Culture! What is it? I could write a book about this, but I just want to say the following – not related to Sennels directly, but directed to the readers of Hommaforum more specifically; the problem with conservatives or traditionalists is their emphasis on the notion of culture, without even necessarily knowing what it is. There are many cultures within cultures – a culture within a culture within a culture. Cultures overlap. Cultures are also more and more transnational – a subculture of a music style extends across all nations, while a culture of, let's say, the Sami, is limited to a more territorial one. Cultures change. Cultures are born, they disappear. Cultures are eternally self-morphing, almost organic entities that shrink and expand, twist and whirl, and exist into ad infinitum. If one wants to put emphasis on a protection of a 'Culture', he must find a way to resist this ad infinitum. One must somehow resist this natural change and transformation, revision and redefinition, deconstruction and reconstuction of his Culture. He must justify the arbitrary borders of nation-states if he is to link his Culture and language with a specific nation-state. He must somehow prevent the stone from rolling, isolate the Culture from other influences and hope that it will stay the same. How to do this, and with what cost, is another question.

Rather....one should not ignore the common qualities between other 'cultures', and most surely not ignore other identities that an individual might possess. It could be seen quite arrogant for a conservative to tell me on my behalf that my culture is for me more important than, let's say, my need to help the refugees. My culture is not a universal value – such as a right to live, which none of us can really deny – so it should not take priority over the latter. Also, like said, cultures do change and disappear! Finnish culture is not what it was before, and what it was before then. And are we that much worse off? Who is to really say that the 'next' Finnish 'culture' is not as functioning or stable, or even 'better' than the current? This is something the conservative right hasn't been able to answer, even though the whole history shows the contrary!

In other words, even though you readers of the Hommaforum probably feel as 'obvious' that Finnish culture is.... (what?), and needs to be protected (..from what?), and you take your 'culture' as granted, remember that there are others who do not! In fact, there are reasons why your standpoint is viewed as.. conservative...

If you now sigh and shake your head in disbelief that someone could be so ignorant as to not value our 'culture' and 'heritage', do not misunderstand me; a person can be very fascinated about Finnish history and culture, have studied it quite a bit, feel deep nostalgia for past times, honour the fallen, celebrate our independence – and yet, a person can question the dusty, worn-out idea of 'protecting our common culture and heritage'.

..back to the topic before I get off track...

This was far too strong for both the mayor and most of the people attending the conference. Another discussion at the conference was that we should try to help criminal foreigners find peace in their life by inviting them to become more religious. Here I reminded the mayor and the others about the many passages in the Quran that actually bid Muslims to do criminal acts – and that several Mosques in Copenhagen are known to be very extremistic. Again this was more than the politicians could handle.

Obviously, as it is not in any way a Truth. Regardless that Sennels is not a scholar of Islam, or any other related field, and just because he has interpreted his Quran – and the commentaries of other biased interpreters that European public discourse is currently infested with – from his own agenda, does not make this a valid claim!

I would love Sennels to show us the passages in Quran he feels directly bid to do criminal acts? Or could he be referring to certain Islamists who have done their own Tafshir (=Scholarly interpretation of Islamic texts, a method encouraged by some to modernizise Islam, and something rejected by the Prophet himself to avoid wrong, and lethal misinterpretations of his words) to drive their own agenda? Certainly, some traditions in Islamic countries – such as chopping of a thief's hand, are criminal to us, and surely the Saudis who come to Europe should not be allowed to do this (and I wish Saudis will stop the practice soon), but this does not make it integrated into Islam (in fact, this tradition is illegal in most Islamic countries).

Perhaps in his book Sennels shows some passages, but so far, as much as I have been involved in this topic, I have never seen anything that would fit to Sennel's description as 'Quran bidding to do criminal acts'. Criminal from whose standpoint, and what acts exactly? What Sennels might be describing are claimed Islamic practices, such as stoning (stoning is not an Islamic practice, it is not mentioned in Quran,  - whereas it is mentioned in the Deuteronomy 22:20,21 of the Bible!), or honor killings (---just as many old traditions were integrated into both Bible and Quran when they were written; - both can then be said to encourage criminal acts.), both remnants of local tribal traditions that became integrated into Islam during the early 7-10th centuries or even much later, and opposed by large majority of Muslims. It is often difficult to keep traditions and religion separated, as they often go hand in hand, but in fact looking at the history, most traditions we think as religious preceded the religion itself; from Christmas tree to wedding ring, all traditions have a history before the religion. Thus it is vital to remember that in this particular case, honor killings and stoning are no less than localized tribal traditions, never that popular in the first place, but pertained throughout history alongside with Islam, to be later somewhat merged with it, and today carried into the West as something inherently 'Islamic'.

While it is true that some mosques in Copenhagen and elsewhere are known to be very extremists (some, not all), the Imam's word is not necessarily Quran's word. In fact, if this was the case, then we wouldn't even have to have this discussion – we could just label all Muslims as dangerous terrorists who don't respect human rights! But this would be unjust to those hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not practice criminal acts, or interpret Quran 'bidding' them to do so! We must remember that Islam and Islamism are too different things, a politicized, dangerous Islamism drives the agenda of those in power, and ignores the opinions of the masses!

Bible has been interpreted in various ways, and there are passages that could and have been interpreted as encouraging to do questionable acts, such as murder, stoning or having sex with a 5-year old, but it does not by any means entail Christianity being a religion that encourages murder or pedophilia!

Sennels, and all others, must also understand the nature of political Islamism as opposed to Islam as a religion. When the East London mosque started holding extremist reunions, all other mosques feared the direction the extremism was taking, and avoided sending their kids to pray there. Unfortunately the trend was becoming more and more popular – like Communism, Maoism or Fascism became once for many young adults – and some kids from traditional, peaceful mosques, started going to EL. The old Imams were worried crazy how Islam would be viewed by the outside, when they just wanted to live a peaceful, uneventful, religious life. A previously relatively well integrated, peaceful Muslim population was soon transformed into a source of potential terrorism – not because of Islam, but because of the growth of Islamism as a political ideology, something very different from Islam!

And before anyone says how Muslim citizens in Middle East all support Islamism, I suggest to have a closer look on the dynamics of extremism and what is today called 'the new war'. For example, the tools of an extreme group such as Hamas are not only to sweet talk into the ears of young, desperate Muslims; in fact, Hamas are much hated and despised by the vast majority of Muslims. What does buy their support, on the other hand, are the bribes given to the people by Hamas – services that the State is not giving them, thus turning the destitute to the only services available – those offered by Hamas. These include, among others, medical care, free education, micro-credit loans, subsidies, rebuilding of destroyes houses, dental care, milk powder, live stock..... you name it.

(You will probably find this page interesting, as many Pew surveys many Muslim attitudes and acts and other things, e.g. Muslims' opinions on terrorism, suicide bombing and women's rights: http://pewglobal.org/ )

This, in effect, is one of my core criticisms of Sennels: from the very start, he associates young, criminal kids with Muslim background as representing Islam in itself. This is like associating drunk, Finnish middle-aged people in the pubs as representing Finnish culture!

I have later debated with the mayor of Copenhagen on my blog "The Cultural Cleft" on Jyllands-Posten. I started the debate because he promised to pay the Muslims' religious festivals if they helped him get reelected at the local elections on November 17th. He – by the way – did not get reelected. The new mayor, Klaus Bondam, is unfortunately an even worse choice. Since he is a homosexual and wears makeup, I guess he will have a hard time communicating with the Muslim society.

Why is it so difficult to have a dialogue with Muslims about the high crime rate and integration problems?

The reason has to do with cultural psychology. In Muslim culture people see their lives mainly as controlled by outside factors – Islam, Allah, the imam, the father of the family, cultural norms and traditions, society, and - when the experience problems - especially non-Muslims and non-Muslim authorities. In our Western culture, it is in many ways the opposite. Here we see ourselves as being in control of our own life. We see our motivation, view on things, way of thinking, communicating and acting as the most important factors deciding our lives. This is why we have so many psychologists and therapists, a great number of social sciences, tons of self help books, etc. – all of which are aimed at our inner life and build on the view that we create and change our own life ourselves. You do not have all these things and also not this view in Muslim culture. If you have a problem as a Muslim, you are not raised to think, "What am I doing wrong since I always end up in trouble?" In the Muslim culture you look outside yourself: "Who did this to me or my life?"

With this way of thinking you always see ourself as the victim and somebody or something outside yourself as the cause of your problems. Bernard Lewis, the famous professor in Islamic history, has observed the same cultural difference. In his words Westerners asks themselves, "What did I do wrong?" and Muslims asks, "Who did this to me?"

Therefore many Muslims do not think that they create the problems. And talking about a person's problems with somebody who thinks that everything is everybody else's fault is not easy...

First about self-help books and all that; Just to provoke a bit, one could say that the Western individualism is famous for separating the individual so strongly from the community, that the individual is not able to rely on the community but needs self-help books or professionals to lift him on his feet again. This indeed is one criticism against West given by other 'cultures', such as Latin American or Asian cultures, known for strong family bonds, community sense and putting more emphasis on responsibility than personal gain or 'right'. Can Sennels really, without being unfairly ethno-centric, say that 'our' way is better way of 'self-help' (do I need to remind Sennels of the high percentage of alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide in Northern Europe, so surprisingly absent in many other 'cultures'?)?

In other words, I find it quite appaulling that Sennels keeps polarizing the world so into West and Muslim, when in fact only a tiny fraction of the world's population think like us; buy self-help books and seek councelling. In most of the world the family or the community is there to help when in need. Besides, one's life almost everywhere in the world (incl. Northern Europe), is largely determined by 'the authority, the father of the family, cultural norms and traditions, society,etc.' ... I find it therefore very etnocentric, even Euro-centric, to ignore this fact. I would have appreciated Sennels much more if he could have said the same about other cultures – but of course as not as many Latinos or Vietnamese do 'criminal acts' in Copenhagen than Muslims, this would not help him much.

Secondly about control; a) are Muslims really that much 'out of control'? Many devoted Muslims seek personal peace in their religious meditations, rather than 'outside'. Muslims are active members of the community, helping and supporting others. Muslims have different hobbies and activities – identities – like many other people; footballers, chess players, Quran readers, literature freaks, singers....you name it. Is it not a bit arrogant to belittle these activities and their importance on a Muslim individual's mental stability? B) are we really that well in control? Some would say quite the opposite!

Why is it so difficult for Sennels to differentiate between a child victim of war and a average adult Muslim???

..not to mention how truly devoted Muslims never blame anyone for the unfortunate tragedies they have suffered – Insh'allah! If it is the  God's will, there is no point feeling vengeful or pointing fingers. ..I suppose Sennels just to forgot to mention this very inherent part of real Islam.

In effect, (forgive me my little straw man) Sennels' standpoint is so utterly ethnocentric that it is a wonder he lives in the 21st century, and not in the time of the very first anthropologists in the heart of Africa, referring to Africans as monkeys.

This is another main point of my criticism of Sennels: His psychology is little less than popular psychology from such an etnocentric standpoint, that it would be impossible to 'academicize' his 'science' in any way. Not wishing to go too ad hominem, I have to wonder again how he got his 'authoritization' to practice psychology!

Does the upbringing have anything to do with criminal behaviour?

Upbringing has everything to do with criminal behaviour. Well brought up people in general have good self confidence, a generally good mood and constructive ways of solving their problems – and they find it easy to love and be useful for themselves and others.

As an experienced professional psychologist within the field I can tell you that most criminals have a lot of anger, insecurity and very little ability to feel empathy. An important question is of course: why are many Muslims brought up in a way that makes them criminal?

Here is a very serious problem; assume that because a larger number per population who do criminal acts come from Muslim background than from native Danish/Finnish, etc., derives from the way the families have brought them up!

I am not saying family is out of the question (especially a family that has travelled through deserts and prisons to get away from flesh-tearing war). But I find it highly problematic to imply that 'many Muslims are brought up in a way that makes them criminal'. This in fact, is absolutely, and completely so out of base that it is ridiculous! Sennels seems to be – again – generalizing from a tiny representation of society (Muslim immigrant kids who have escaped, or their parents have escaped, from war, and of whom a portion become so disturbed they end up doing criminal acts) into the Muslim society as a whole.

Of course for a psychologist who has not witnessed war himself, or worked as a psychologist especially for traumatized victims of war (which is a separate field indeed), it is simply impossible to understand the background that these kids come from – but I would have assumed him to be a bit more aware of the complexity of the issue, and not reduce the problems to the family so easily!

If he could reframe his question, and ask 'why are so many Muslims kids in Denmark, who have, or whose parents have escaped war, inclined to do criminal acts' I would have been more impressed. To say 'Many Muslims' and 'are brought up as criminals' is a choice of words so utterly ridiculous that I am simply left out of words myself. I can only wish that Sennels does not use the same premise in his book.

Let me answer that question with an analogy. Some families are healthy for children to grow up in. They develop a sense of self-responsibility, they develop empathy and learn that destructive emotions such as anger, jealousy, revenge, etc. are negative and should be controlled and dealt with. Some families are unhealthy for children to grow up in: they become inflexible and unable to adjust to social rules, they become careless of others and themselves, etc. In this way all families have their own culture, their own emotional and cultural environment, which shapes the people growing up in it. Just as families have different cultures and can be healthy or unhealthy for people's developement, so can whole cultures.

There is no doubt that the Muslim culture in general is unhealthy to grow up in.
Its admiration of anger, its suppression of female qualities (in psychology known as "femina"), its very insecure relationship to honor, its victim mentality and its lack of focus on individual reflexion on the connection between one's own behaviour and one's own problems very easily create immature and aggressive individuals with low self conficence.

Sennels is showing such a remarkable lack of professional skill and knowledge that I am again left with no words. Or not..

'generally unhealthy to grow up' – obviously Sennels has not spent time with Muslims, especially within Muslim countries, to make such a ridiculous claim. Although I can sincerely say, that extreme interpretations of Islam, e.g. those in Saudi Arabia, many parts in Somalia or Taleban-run Afghanistan, to mention a few are undeniably horrible environments to grow up in, to say that 'Muslim culture in general' shows a remarkable degree of ignorance and experience. I have to refer to my earlier commentary on Muslim 'cultures' and the variety of forms that Islam can manifest in various countries (and Islamism!). I deplore the fact that there is little I can prove in terms of 'healthy Muslims' although I personally know so many of them, and know them to be so healthy, that just through my own experience I could prove Sennels claim faulty, - but the claim can also be criticized for its simplistic generalization, and its arrogant claim that 'there is no doubt' (when there is so much doubt in fact). Of course Sennels would not dare to look into the mirror and ask, whether a Western world with its eating disorders, body images, jealousies, envies, greeds, anxieties, etc. is a 'generally healthy culture to grow up' (is it healthy that almost 50% of young girls suffer some degree of eating disorders? Are the alcoholism and suicide rates in Europe healthy? How about general apathy, disregard for strangers' sufferings, lack of trust, domestic violence?

'Admiration of anger' – in which way? Certainly Muslims are not Zen Buddhists when it comes to anger management – but I find them generally more patient and calm than latinos! In fact, Muslim 'culture' – in 'general' – respects composure, good behaviour, calm and patience, tolerance and dignity. How is 'anger' any way more 'admired' than these qualities so inherent in Muslim 'cultures'? There are also differences to how a Turkish displays his anger to that of a Yemenese's. In effect, the former's temperament is very little different from e.g. Italians...

...or is Sennels again making a dangerous generalization from 'young, criminal Muslims' to Muslims in 'general'?

'honor' – is 'honor' not admired greatly in other cultures as well, such as Hindu, Confucian, Daoist or Buddhist cultures? How is a Japanese's or a Latino's or a Hindu's 'honor' less 'dangerous' than that of a Muslim's? Is a skinhead's sense of 'honor' somehow not relevant here, them being Western and all? In fact, isn't one of the reasons for domestic violence against Western women by Western men related to the man's 'honor'? (besides, referring to honor killings; around 5000 happen each year, whereas victims of domestic violence in some developed countries amount to 12000-20000/country)

'femina' – suppression of female qualities? While I am very strongly against those cultural/traditional/tribal/Christian/Muslim/whatever/[insert] customs that violate female's rights and deny their freedom (FGM, domestic violence, low salaries, objectification, patriarchy, stoning of a rape victim, etc.), I find this terminology quite confusing. What female 'qualities' are actually being suppressed? And I generally agree to the fact that by denying women rights, the man also harms himself in the long run, but they are in no way an instant sequitur; violating a woman's right to freedom does not, unfortunately, necessarily make a man insecure, aggressive or immature.

Again, if Sennels wanted to make himself a bit more credible, he would have extended his argument to concern all societies that suppress women's right of self-expression; following his argument, I guess that would make most of world's 'culture's 'sick and unhealthy' – although he would undoubtedly deny this involving West even in the smallest degree. As always, for Sennels', there is just 'us' and 'them'.

Most of the Muslim female friends of mine carry themselves with great dignity, with a head held high and beautiful, feminine, latest clothes and make-up – and they can talk about sex and boys for ages. Again; there are differences between cultures ( young Somali women in Helsinki tend to be much more liberated than in Somalia, but many e.g. Iranians or Turkish are very full of 'femina' in their home country)

On the topic of women's rights I could go on for ages, but here I could point one thing; Muslim women are organizing more than ever before. Sisters of Islam and other organizations have spread in millions around the world, joining both male and female Muslims under the cause of improving women's rights. From general suffrage to FGM (did I mention FGM's not a Muslim practice per se, it has also been practiced by Christian Africans, animists and other groups aside Islam. -- Here again we need to remember that tradition and religion are not always the same thing!), these women have already made a tremendous progress, and will continue to do so, as new generation of Muslims are becoming liberal – in fact, the movement labelled as 'liberal Muslim' consists more than half of the Muslim population in the world (and the 'liberalization' is an evolving process in itself) – while mostly women, also men are included. From my own acquiantances with refugee women in Europe, most if not all of them are very aware of their rights. I also want us to remember history; e.g. pre-Soviet invation women in Afghanistan carried more rights and freedoms than many women in other parts of the world at the time, including a right to walk unveiled, study in a university, work as a judge or whatever, etc. Remember also, that there were times a couple of hundreds of years back – before general suffrage in the West – when in Muslim societies women had more rights, freedom and respect than women in the pre-Victorian, and especially pre-Enlightenment era in the West! In fact, the first notions of democracy weren't only found in Ancient Greece; they were found in the heart of Africa and in Middle East as well, and famous Islamic philosophers have discussed it before being influenced by West.

Are your professional observations seen as political instead of sheer observations of a professional psychologist?

Of course I and also my book have been criticized. As you can hear, I say things straight out. But those who criticize me have either no experience with working professionally with Muslims or are Muslims themselves.

Maybe Sennels could define who he refers to as 'those who work professionally with Muslims'...as I, including myself, know many people who work professionally with Muslims and would find many of Sennels' claims absolutely ludicrous.

When I do lectures for school teachers and social workers on schools with many Muslims, they all agree with me. At those occassions it is not at all a question of whether I am right or wrong – because they have exactly the same observations as I do.

...Observations that are little less than judgements without much theoretical or psychological understanding of the issue....

At those lectures we go directly to the solutions. The Danish magazine for professional Danish psychologists, PsykologNyt, recently reviewed my book. The review was very positive, stating that it is "a provoking eye-opener, convincing and well founded with many concrete examples". Several national newspapers also wrote positively about the book and even our most famous Muslim politician, Naser Khader, who has himself written a book on Muslim culture, was very favourably disposed. Khader states that "the professional expertise that Nicolai Sennels has is exceptional and the clear examples in his book make it a must-read for all teachers and social workers". Among people who have experience with Muslims, I am clearly seen as a experienced professional psychologist.

Based on this interview I am not particularly impressed. I would assume that if his book was well-founded, he could present himself in a credible way in interviews, but this doesn't seem to be the case. I am therefore not sure whether I should waste my time, or hope that he withdraws these unfounded claims in his book, claims that he so confidently declares in interviews, and read it... but if any of the previous 'smarties' are repeated in the book, I'll skip it – and label the book together with Scientology and Social Darwinism.

Why aren't the media and academia reacting? Is it because those journalists and academics who have so to speak invested to appeasement would be risking their careers? After all, if we go back to assimilation, plenty of people within the media and universities with multicultural careers would face a personal disaster ?

I wish to answer this one from the perspective of myself, my fellow students, colleagues and professors, having joked about this quite a bit; the academia is not reacting because Sennels – such as Halla-Aho & Co. – are generally seen as jokes, and pseudo-social science. They are treated by most with absolutely no respect in the fields that tackle the issue; from professional psychologists, to anthropologists, sociologists, political theorists... hardly any one truly academically trained would buy the claims of Sennels or Halla-Aho, unless they read their production as a sort of a religious guidebook – with purple glasses and turning the academic switch OFF. How many academics bother refuting UFO-freaks, scientologists or conspiracy theorists? Not many – because they're not worth it! (even though have to admit that Sennels did a much better job than Tatu Vanhanen or Halla-Aho)

The main creed in academic circles is that cause and effect does not work for Muslims. With cause and effect I mean that people create their own lives. In Academic circles you are taught that the fate of poor and anti-social people are in the hands of the rest of us.

It is true that the mainstream social science has been more humanistic than realistic in the last decades, but this trend has been shifting from the 70's; the modern theories such as micro-credit are just examples of innovations that attempt to enhance the individual's own capacities instead of treating poor and anti-social people as victims who need a pat on the head. But let us not confuse the issue; integration policy is a large, and a vast field of research, and it has definitely always taken interest in the individual participation; too bad that the projects and approaches created hardly ever gain enough popular or economical support to actually make a big difference. Integration is the key issue of this dicussion as well; and the source of this discussions are not the criminal Muslims, nor refugee flows, nor lack of monetary investments – but inefficient, ignorant and unfunded integration policies.

But it is completely clear

....Sennels seems to have it all so clear, when high-ranking officials or highly educated academics do not have it so clear at all, not at all..

that Muslims create their own problems by not integrating, not learning Danish, not educating their children, not allowing their women normal human rights, not working, not opening up to our Western culture, etc. Especially their oppression of female qualities is very harmful to both their women, men, children, and their ability to build transparent, free, democratic and humanistic societies. The only case where cause and effect works – according to academics – is when rich people are depressed or are unsuccesful: that is their own fault and serves them right... Ridiculous. If we are not willing to show people their own part of the problems they have, how are we to teach them how to solve them?

'not integrating' – again Sennels seems to see integration as a one-way street. He seems to be one of those who think 'we have already done enough' by admiting these people in in the first place. Yet this approach is questionable in e.g. following way; asylum seekers are treated, according to him and according to mainstream right wing, as receptors of 'charity'. Yet, without even having to refer to the UN Convention that denies us the freedom to forcedly return a refugee to a country where he will be in danger, it should be noted that the asylum system is first and foremost a humanitarian system based on a moral responsibility, not charity. When member states shift from the 'charity' approach to the 'moral responsibility' approach, I believe we have better chances in implementing real, efficient, two-way integration programs.

...'not learning Danish'... is part of the problem of inefficient integration policies. An example of a two-way approach could be for example an imposition of a criteria for residence permit; a duty to participate in so and so many Danish classes over a such and such a period, or e.g. social welfare will be denied or reduced. Incentives are needed for the asylum seekers to put more effort in learning language. Yet this is a two-way program, because until now the offer of language classes has been limited to bare, of a very short length, and doesn't usually reach those immigrants who are already living in the community (out of centres). This needs more resources and political will, something the receiving countries have lacked so far. Yet language is the first and foremost integration strategy!

'not working' – this is ridiculous. I am surprised that a psychologist knows so little of the physical and mental difficulties faced by immigrants from all parts of the world when looking for work. Seen all those Africans hanging out on roadsides in Southern Europe in thousands every morning from 4am until late evening, waiting for someone, just someone to come and give a few hours of work? Seen all those Africans in the employment centres in Finland or Denmark, coming every morning to check on the latest classifieds for job opportunities? As a psychologist, has he really never had as a patient one of those African grown-ups who fall into tears when talking about the desperation regarding their job situation? Big men crying in front of a Western official/psychologist! ...'Not working??'

'not opening up to Western culture' – again, Sennels bases all his claims on his experiences having worked with criminal Muslims, and sees integration as a one-way street. That means, he has little experience of non-criminal Muslims. I personally know many of them who are well adjusted to Western culture, and have taken up Western habits with pleasure from veil-abandoning to sleeveless tops, from pork to porn, from dancing to art. Tolerant they are all those I know, even if not fully embracing some silly Western trends (a couple of friends of mine choose to veil themselves for personal reasons, being very devoted believers – such as some in the West choose to visibly carry a cross. Veiling is not always a violation of a woman's freedom! (burkha is another issue)). If Sennels is only referring to those Muslims who come from conflict countries, this is an antirely different matter – and a psychologist should understand how different – and even in this case I have witnessed some brave Somalis/Eritreans/etc. who have lost all their family and still managed to become educated and employed in Europe. Has Sennels ever spent some time in London or Paris? (not to mention USA, Australia, or any Muslim countries ...) Or are his experiences only based on 'criminal Muslims'? And on this he writes his book!

Britain and Sweden appear to be competing for being the European leader in hiding problems under the carpet. Sometimes Denmark is considered to be some kind of forerunner in more free debate. But this image of Denmark may not be that accurate – you still have Tøger Seidenfaden and DR. And has so much changed in Danish politics during last years, in spite of all the talk?

Denmark is world famous for our open debate on Islam and Muslim immigration. And we surely deserve the attention. Our newspapers are full of readers' letters criticizing Islam and the failed immigration of Muslims. It is simply a part of Danish culture to speak out and to ridicule those who get angry and lose face when criticized. Of course we have people not realizing the great danger of Islam and of having ethnic tensions resulting from failed immigration of Muslims. There is no doubt that extreme leftist newspapers such as Tøger Seidenfaden's Politiken would lose readers – and thereby money – if they started being realistic about the problems. But they are already losing readers and their only two parties, Enhedslisten and De Radikale Venstre, are on their way out the parlament's drain. The normal woman and man of the street sees very clearly what is happening to our countries. They meet the aggressive Muslims in discos, in their children's schools, in the subway, etc. Most important is that people talk together about it. For every person who just mentions a bit about their worries about Muslim immigration at work, for example, will help several of their collegues to think and talk more freely about the subject at work, family dinners, etc.

What would be the most important change you would make in handling Muslim immigrants, given that you could decide?

Inviting people from a completely other culture to live in our countries is the biggest sociological experiment in history of mankind and it is clearly turning out bad.

Here's the part that is historically and actually not correct. It is a biased opinion, nothing less. Mass migrations have happened before, and cultural 'collitions' have happened many times before. Many could say in fact, that this is just one sociological experiment among others in the history of mankind. I could go into depth in this history – and an unbiased historian could do so even more -, but I want to keep this short; nothing is clearly turning out anything; just because current integration policies suck does not mean that Muslims cannot live in peace with different cultures. In fact, they have lived, and they are living, as we speak. Sennels seems very fatalist, even social darwinist for a psychologist – something not consistent with his general sense of activism and individual freedom. And, as always, he makes the fatal generalization from a very marginalized group of Muslims into Muslims in general, not understanding the complexity and diversity of the Muslim immigrants' background, Muslim culture, political Islamism, and the teachings of Islam.

Social Science has long ceased to be simplistically reductionist; instead of reducing everything into one thing, social sciences are aiming more and more each day to understand the complexity of the issues it deals with, the various sources of problems and their interconnections, and finding holistical solutions to particular problems.

Making deep changes in the demographics of a whole continent is very harzardous.

As before, this is a funny statement, although, understandably, it's not coming from a historian (well, nor am I a historian, but anyway..). Deep changes in the demographics of a whole continent is the story of human kind! Hazardous? Maybe. At least they are changes. Sometimes species got extinct (Neanderthal for example), sometimes they fused (into homo sapiens). Sometimes many were killed (genocide of aboriginals in Australia or Indians in America), sometimes many were 'assimilated' (Afro-Caribbean, Indo-Chinese). Sometimes  they were marginalized for hundreds of years (Jews), sometimes they became dominant (Latin America). - Although a bit simplistic, my point is hopefully clear.

Immigrants who do not want to assimilate – meaning taking our culture to their heart and becoming Westerners – should not be here.

This, in essence, is a scary claim; they should become us? Of course, I am not saying that we need to become them, of course they are coming here after all! But what does this mean? Assimilation in essence means a sort of unification – like Marquis de Condorcet in the, was it 18th century when he introduced his concept of cosmopolitanism, envisaged a world where everyone is coffee-colored and speaks different dialects of the same lingua franca – and this usually goes both ways. In essence, simplistically speaking, multiculturalism (= 'integration') is a somewhat different conception from absolute cosmopolitanism (='assimilation'). I myself believe a measure of cosmopolitanism will happen in due time in future unless surprising natural disasters stop globalization, but for our current age we should probably talk about integrating many cultures so that they can live together...  that is, we are not looking to convert Muslims to secular or Christian Westerners, we are seeking to evolve our communication and customs so that Muslims can be Muslims, and we can be what ever the heck we want to be, but we can live together and thrive.

We have to find places on our planet where such people can live without the pressure of having to integrate and where their surroundings do not suffer from their anti-social behaviour, religious fanatisism and lack of contribution to our economy.

...here we go again.
'anti-social behaviour' – as we are undoubtedly talking about Muslim refugees and not Muslims in general (or are we?), let me just say that Muslims in no way are anti-social by nature in Finland or Denmark or wherever. In here they may be resigned, depressed, withdrawn, scared, tired, destitute, lonely, shy, traumatized, and what not, but anti-social? That's a bit harsh. What kind of a psychologist anyway – a professional who's supposed to understand individual's needs and not do general anthropology – reduces immigrant criminal Muslim's – or any other's – social problems into 'anti-social behaviour'?

'religious fanaticism' – again, Sennels & Co. must understand the difference between mainstream Muslims and political Islamists. If there are a lot of young people with Islamist inclinations (and I am not sure if there are that many at all), is this something inherent in Islam coming to Europe, or something compeletely different? (such as the oppressed and marginalized turning towards a political ideology in time of great desperation, such as during the peak of Communism & Co.?)

'lack of contribution to our economy' – assuming, again, that we are only talking about refugee Muslims.... In any case, not to mention all those Muslims that do work, should I remind again about those thousands on the roadsides or the employment offices, or does Sennel find an excuse for why they are not working, such as 'they do not wait long enough' (I'm sure he himself would tire after 6-12 hours of waiting in a day), 'they do not do it the correct way' (maybe he can teach), 'they don't really want work they just do it to show'.... These are called ad hoc arguments, that is, they are given when the opponent wants to continue arguing stubborningly, even when his arguments have been refuted. Many religious fundamentalists, such as Creationists, use the same technique. It is like trying to prove them that God does not exist, as there is no real way to prove that anyway... Or if Sennels is talking about only young, criminal Muslims, then he should know how young criminals in 'general' go on with things like employment, education, routines and responsibilities...

On internet forums with a critical tilt on immigration, the cultural appeasements given to Muslims are considered exactly the 180 degrees wrong policy. Especially those Danes and Swedes who have lived at close proximity to Muslim neighbourhoods state that the appeasements just make muslims even more demanding. Could it be seen that these appeasements have an effect on criminality? Is all appeasement bad, or are there any bright spots?

There is no doubt that appeasement makes Muslims feel stronger and feel that they are right. It also makes us look weak in their eyes. Their victim mentality grows immensely every time the appeasers open their mouth. You see, appeasement is a Western tradition.

No, it is not.

Appeasement is "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous." (WikiBible)

Appeasement (suom. Myöntyvyyspolitiikka) is a widely practiced tradition, in many various forms, across cultures. Whether or not it got it's fame and name from the WWII is irrelevant; rational negotiating has happened since early Africa. Anyway... the term has been ridiculed since its failure in the War, but the contrary of the term has usually lead to equal mistakes; Iraq war was justified based on the belief that 'appeasement will not work'. But does it ever work? Of course it does; most peace negotiations today, such as the succesful Aceh held by our former president Martti Ahtisaari, was based on appeasement.

--Does it work in this case? First of all, I am not sure at all if we are dealing with an international 'quarrel'! We are dealing with unsatisfied younger generation, disturbed Muslim kids, who turn to a political ideology or crime when they have nothing better to be offered – and some older generation conservative traditionalists who have a hard time of keeping their prodigy on a leash, and who will probably die soon anyway and give room to the liberalists, who are a majority! Second of all, admitting and satisfying grievances is the only way for sustainable peace building. Tyranny, dominance, submission, 'shut up or leave'-type of argumentation doesn't work. Surprise?

If we make a compromise or are nice to somebody, we naturally expect that they feel thankfulness and will do their best to solve their part of the problem. Muslims think differently: in their culture it is the dog that barks the loudest that becomes the boss.

Many anti-immigrationists feel that immigrants are not 'grateful' enough for the 'hospitality' our countries have provided. First of all, this disappointment on behalf of the receiving country for this lack of gratitude stems from our belief that this is a 'charity' that we are doing – instead of fulfilling a moral and legal responsibility.

Secondly, I myself would not be very grateful, if I had spent years being tortured and malnutriotioned, then almost killed myself to get to Europe, only to be treated like garbage in detention centres and failing to get the employment and security (I hope you don't associate social welfare for unemployed immigrants as 'security' in terms of a sense of independence, self-esteem and pride – employment is unbelievably important for immigrants, and much more than some native Finnish lazy-asses I know!) I came here for. I am, in fact, surprised at how many asylum seekers and those with protection I have met  are incredibly grateful; in one of the most inhumane closed detention centres in Malta which has been criticized as being worse than Philippine death rows or Palestine prisons (words of a former diplomat's and an ex- colleague of mine – an unfortunately not the only one in Southern and Central Europe), an asylum seeker still said, repeating how grateful he is to Malta that he is better off now than in Somalia – 'at least he's not gonna wacked by a machete here'. But he had just arrived... and hadn't yet experienced the torturing system on the island or in many other receiving countries.

And thirdly, in Muslim culture it's certainly not the dog that barks that becomes a boss! In fact, as Sennels should know, the religious leaders, for their wisdom and knowledge are the bossest of the bosses. It is completely another question if a brutal dictator takes control of che country and brutalizes its citizens – this has happened in non-Muslim countries as well. And when it comes to personal career, fame is gained through efficient deeds, polite manners, good connections and intellect – hardly no one respects a barking dog over an Imam or a respectful political leader.

Where does Sennels base his claims on? On his experiences as a psychologist for disturbed children??? Well in the kids' 'culture' all over the world the dog who barks the loudest does become the boss – surprise??

In our culture we think that only small dogs bark – big dogs do not have to, because they are big and do what they want. When they bark we think that they are immature and need a hand. When we just appease and compromise our own values, they think we are weak and vulnerable and the feeling of needing to adjust to our culture gets smaller. Appeasement politics is a deadly result of not understanding this crucial difference between Western and Muslim culture.

I do agree in one respect; whether Muslims being Muslims or Holabattuuns or Dwarks, one way appeasement policies are never effective. Hushing up, brushing the problems under the carpet – none of these work, nor does patting on another one's head, say 'there there' and hope he will feel better. Apologies don't help, nor do punishments. Both lack respect; but the key is to create a level of mutual respect and understanding. - Not baby sit Muslims and think of them as kids we need to teach (= imperialism), nor be apologetic and apologize for everything we say and do. They should be treated like adults. (and here we should remember that the vast majority of the criminals, rioters and violent Muslims are young adults, not grown-up dads, moms and career people. It is a completely different thing to talk about young people's minds than all Muslims' minds in general!)

The worst thing is that the appeasers and the politically correct crowd has managed to scare a lot of people not to speak their opinion out loud. People are afraid of being called a racist or that others think bad about them. My advise is: Don't care! If you saw a scared girl being dragged by the hair by four boys – would you try to stop them? If you are seriously worried about Islam and Muslim immigration – would you tell it?

Thank you for your effort Nicolai , and we wish you all the best.

Thank you , and thank you for yourselves for the interest !

SUMMA SUMMARUM:

What's wrong with Sennels' arguments? Why is he a perfect example of a 'pseudo-psychologist´?

His reasoning is characterized by generalizations, he fails to do what a scientist should do; keep the test sample separate from the source (i.e. not generalize orangutans into all primates). This is such a common feature of his argumentantion that it should be obvious. He is also making frequent simplified, even falsely interpreted claims about statistics, Quran and other things.

Let's also remember that he is not just a claimed psychologist, but in fact a politician, member of the Danish People's Party. This explains why his dialogue is so politically simplistic and provocative, rather than 'professional and academic' as he attempts to present himself.

Sennels has also been presented as having special insight on Muslim culture for being a psychologist for juvenile criminals in a juvenile prison – this of course is an obvious fallacy; the only thing Sennels has any expertise of, is criminal and marginalized juvenile asylum seekers with Muslim parents living in Denmark - a very narrow group indeed, hardly representing Muslim culture in general!

A professional, academic psychologist with expertise on Muslim culture???

...I hope you agree with me after reading this far, that Nicolai Sennels is nothing more than a pseudo-psychologist riding on the wing of political provocation and the sympathy of right-leaning, largely uneducated, mostly xenophobia-ridden victims of a growing number of other popular pseudo –scientists who make their arguments sound valid, while ignoring facts and resorting into hideous argumentation fallacies with a shameless, yet equally shameful, aggressivity. If, after this, you have even the slightest doubt whether your stand is faulty, but are too shy to show it to your Sennels- or Halla-aho-quoting friends, go and experience it for yourself; there are many places where you can see and meet with those Muslims that have been doing their best in integrating into a Western culture. Talk to them, hear their story, ask them questions, and maybe you will realize that there is more to everything than just the evil monster of Islam.


Yours Truly,

-Kiko Kennels-


Studying Muslim integration in Europe:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/20/muslim-integration-gallup

[Pöllämystynyt]

Hi, and welcome to forum!

I will reply only partially today.

The professionality of this writer seems to me unproven. I have not been able to find any concrete evidence of the positive feedback given by established academics or professionals. In fact, all references I have found to this fellow seem to link directly or indirectly to conservative right-wing people, blogs, websites and magazines. Those few outside extreme political right seem to view him with ridicule. Whatever he considers as 'professional' media is perhaps 'professional' in terms of politics, but very little in terms of psychology or social sciences.

The little that I have heard of Sennels doesn't make me able to judge this. I think I want to hear what Sennels replies on that.

What is the "political right" and "right-wing" you are talking about? What makes them "right wing"? Is there a group categorising itself as "right wing" that supports Sennels, or is this name "right wing" given to people or groups because they support Sennels or some other politically incorrect thinkers?

I am a leftist and green. If I would believe what Sennels says, would you categorise me to "right wing"?

I'm just wondering how is it possible that only the "right wing" doesn't defy Sennels. As far as I have read there is nothing especially "right wing" on what he says. "Right" and "left" are not based on that sorts of questions, they are not defined on ones opinion of psychology or religion as they are mainly economic stances.

I remember many years back an incident in the central railway station in Helsinki, where a white, Finnish born woman was raped by a white, Finnish born man – behind a statue in the very middle of the square, late, but a busy Friday (?) night. The woman had screamed for help – no one had come to rescue. Another event reminded me of a woman (?) who in the middle of the same square, daytime, attempted to stab her boyfriend in a crazy fit – she actually succeeded to stab him a few times before anyone (guard?) came to stop her. They were native Finnish. How many times has Sennels himself ignored similar events, when he suddenly 'wakes up' as soon as this brutality is done by a Muslim?

What is the point of this argument? I havent heard of this incident, but lets suppose its true. Ok, there was an evil Finnish person doing an evil thing. How is it related to this argument? Are you trying to say that Finnish people on average rapes as often as muslims of Denmark? Such incidents committed by Finns are not that common.

No ethnicity is perfect, and no ethnicity is all bad. It seems to me that Sennels wants to say that this incident in Denmark was just an instance. But it was an instance that made him to think of these questions and realise things like that there are problems with integration, that on average some ethnicities commits rape or other crimes more often than the others, etc. How would a different instance in Finland affect on these conclusions? Sennels doesn't say we should generalise things based on instances, so the instance you gave seems irrelevant. If someone "wakes up" and starts demonising ethnic Finnish minority of European Union based on such a horror story on the news, then it's of course sad, but its not an analogy of what Sennels is doing.

[RP]

I'm short of time so just some comments

Also, like said, cultures do change and disappear! Finnish culture is not what it was before, and what it was before then. And are we that much worse off? Who is to really say that the 'next' Finnish 'culture' is not as functioning or stable, or even 'better' than the current?

We are talking this primarily in context of immigration from countries like Somalia, Iraq and Afganistan. Do you seriously consider that adaptation of cultural straits from those specific countries would be desirable?

In other words, even though you readers of the Hommaforum probably feel as 'obvious' that Finnish culture is.... (what?), and needs to be protected (..from what?), and you take your 'culture' as granted, remember that there are others who do not! In fact, there are reasons why your standpoint is viewed as.. conservative...

That there exists culture in Finland should be self evident. Finland and it is people could not be described just by listing the biological characteristics of the members of species Homo Sapiens living in it. Likewise it should be self evident that most of the characteristics of Finnish culture are not to unique to it, but the nevertheless (if you've lived in other countries, you should have noticed) the combination of them is at least somewhat different from what you see in any other country. The cultures we have most in common are (for historical reasons) typically those geographically closest.

Interesting that in the name of "multiculturalism" some people in west Europe seem to advocate deliberate destruction of some cultures, namely their own.

Bible has been interpreted in various ways, and there are passages that could and have been interpreted as encouraging to do questionable acts, such as murder, stoning or having sex with a 5-year old, but it does not by any means entail Christianity being a religion that encourages murder or pedophilia!

If there were a sect here advocating following the every letter of Bible, especially old testament, I would be against mass immigration such people as well. That does not seem to be problem though. As an atheist I can note with some satisfaction that Christians have mostly managed to get rid off Bible...

Hamas are much hated and despised by the vast majority of Muslims.

Do you have a source for that?

What does buy their support, on the other hand, are the bribes given to the people by Hamas – services that the State is not giving them, thus turning the destitute to the only services available – those offered by Hamas. These include, among others, medical care, free education, micro-credit loans, subsidies, rebuilding of destroyes houses, dental care, milk powder, live stock..... you name it.

They seem to be pretty good with PR. Pity that the Palestinians (Arabs in general) haven't had much leaders genuinely interested in the welfare of their citizens.

In other words, I find it quite appaulling that Sennels keeps polarizing the world so into West and Muslim, when in fact only a tiny fraction of the world's population think like us; buy self-help books and seek councelling. In most of the world the family or the community is there to help when in need. Besides, one's life almost everywhere in the world (incl. Northern Europe), is largely determined by 'the authority, the father of the family, cultural norms and traditions, society,etc.' ... I find it therefore very etnocentric, even Euro-centric, to ignore this fact.

But these are our countries -don't we have a right to do things our way here? The rest of the world can do what they want in theirs (although I would prefer they would choose a path not leading people coming here seeking asylum (or "asylum")

..not to mention how truly devoted Muslims never blame anyone for the unfortunate tragedies they have suffered – Insh'allah! If it is the  God's will, there is no point feeling vengeful or pointing fingers. ..I suppose Sennels just to forgot to mention this very inherent part of real Islam.

Are we talking about real Islam or some abstract ideal Islam? It is the real Islam that generates the news.

(besides, referring to honor killings; around 5000 happen each year, whereas victims of domestic violence in some developed countries amount to 12000-20000/country)

You are equating non-lethal violence in other countries with honor killings?

'not integrating' – again Sennels seems to see integration as a one-way street. He seems to be one of those who think 'we have already done enough' by admiting these people in in the first place. Yet this approach is questionable in e.g. following way; asylum seekers are treated, according to him and according to mainstream right wing, as receptors of 'charity'. Yet, without even having to refer to the UN Convention that denies us the freedom to forcedly return a refugee to a country where he will be in danger, it should be noted that the asylum system is first and foremost a humanitarian system based on a moral responsibility, not charity. When member states shift from the 'charity' approach to the 'moral responsibility' approach, I believe we have better chances in implementing real, efficient, two-way integration programs.

First of all number of refugees entering the country on their own have been between few and few dozens annually. That is only tiny minority of the whole "humanitarian immigration". Secondly, even one would accept a moral responsibility over a larger group people, that would be moral responsibility to offer them shelter from persecution, not responsibility to support permanently healthy adults or tolerate criminal behaviour.

...'not learning Danish'... is part of the problem of inefficient integration policies. An example of a two-way approach could be for example an imposition of a criteria for residence permit; a duty to participate in so and so many Danish classes over a such and such a period, or e.g. social welfare will be denied or reduced. Incentives are needed for the asylum seekers to put more effort in learning language. Yet this is a two-way program, because until now the offer of language classes has been limited to bare, of a very short length, and doesn't usually reach those immigrants who are already living in the community (out of centres). This needs more resources and political will, something the receiving countries have lacked so far. Yet language is the first and foremost integration strategy!

The suggestions you give are not bad, but if there lack a genuine motivation to learn forcing an immigrant to language class maybe just a waste of money. Anyway, the offer of language classes (here) is not "limited to bare". I know because my wife attends them, and so far there has not bee one course she has not been able to get in when applying in time. I pay the course fees (not that high anyway) from my own pocket; "Humanitarians" and other qualified groups could get the money from unemployment office.

Just bit later you claimed that immigrants, especially Africans are eager to work. I'm sure many are, but just above you said we need more incentives for them to attend language courses. At least If you are not highly educated professional, not knowing the language of the country is damn big obstacle for finding a job. If one is not sufficiently motivated to study the language, then I have to presume one is not very motivated to be employed either.

Making deep changes in the demographics of a whole continent is very harzardous.

As before, this is a funny statement, although, understandably, it's not coming from a historian (well, nor am I a historian, but anyway..). Deep changes in the demographics of a whole continent is the story of human kind! Hazardous? Maybe. At least they are changes. Sometimes species got extinct (Neanderthal for example), sometimes they fused (into homo sapiens). Sometimes many were killed (genocide of aboriginals in Australia or Indians in America), sometimes many were 'assimilated' (Afro-Caribbean, Indo-Chinese). Sometimes  they were marginalized for hundreds of years (Jews), sometimes they became dominant (Latin America). - Although a bit simplistic, my point is hopefully clear.

No, actually it is not clear. Because surely you are not trying to say that since other people have suffered genocide, colonization, cultural destruction earlier, we should happily invite anybody welcome anybody who wants to come here. Even if it ends up badly for us, it would not be the first time in history?!

Assimilation in essence means a sort of unification – like Marquis de Condorcet in the, was it 18th century when he introduced his concept of cosmopolitanism, envisaged a world where everyone is coffee-colored and speaks different dialects of the same lingua franca – and this usually goes both ways.

Even if one saw this form of global monoculturalism would be considered desirable, I would want the resulting mix to resemble more of our  end the cultural spectrum than the one in Somalia. The road by the way is not travelled in both directions. Here the slogan seems to be "Europe belongs to everybody" while elsewhere it is "Africa belongs to Africans". Which taken into it's logical conclusion, and considering the relatively populations and birth rates would mean "Europeans do not have place anywhere"

we are seeking to evolve our communication and customs so that Muslims can be Muslims, and we can be what ever the heck we want to be, but we can live together and thrive.

And what do we do with those member of Muslim immigrant community that want no such thing? (I do not claim this equals all of them)

(out of time)

[I Work in Asylum System]

Hi, and welcome to forum!

I will reply only partially today.

What is the "political right" and "right-wing" you are talking about? What makes them "right wing"? Is there a group categorising itself as "right wing" that supports Sennels, or is this name "right wing" given to people or groups because they support Sennels or some other politically incorrect thinkers?

I am a leftist and green. If I would believe what Sennels says, would you categorise me to "right wing"?

I'm just wondering how is it possible that only the "right wing" doesn't defy Sennels. As far as I have read there is nothing especially "right wing" on what he says. "Right" and "left" are not based on that sorts of questions, they are not defined on ones opinion of psychology or religion as they are mainly economic stances.

Your question 'what makes them right wing' deserves a better definition of what I meant as 'right':

Political spectrum is not simplistically a horizontal right-left line (traditionally understood leftism and rightism) - and I apologize if I haven't emphasized my point clearly enough; there is also a vertical line, and your economic stance and conservativeness can be placed somewhere on this diagram (communitarianism and individualism or authoritarianism and libertarianism). Simplistically speaking, you maybe a right wing in terms of economics (neo-liberal), but not in terms of conservativeness.

I.e. the spectrum goes; the horizontal lines is progressive left on the far end, and conservative right on the other, and on vertical (economic) it goes libertarian vs. authoritarian. Fascism is an extreme form of conservative authoritarianism, and anarchism is an extreme of libertarian left. Yet there are always overlapping characteristic between these two polar ends, and a leftist can indeed be anti-Muslim (e.g. hard core Communists who are against all religion), and a rightist can be pro-Muslim. Yet overall majority of anti-immigrants present conservative right.

So in politics, right generally refers to support for preserving traditional customs  - the horizontal right wing usually endorses ethnic nationalism and cultural conservatism. Ethnic nationalism has not historically been found on the left, while 'civic/liberal nationalism' that was developed in Quebec and other places based its nationalism on common citizenship - regardless of ethnicity -, is often associated with the left. This is why I find it very hard to understand how a green and a left could endorse ethnic nationalism.

Why I simplified Sennels speaking mostly to the 'right wing' audience is because I thought it clear that we are talking about conservative right, not necessarily economic right (I myself stand somewhere in the middle when it comes to economics). Right wing in the modern politics, e.g. European elections 2009, presented the side of anti-immigrants and anti-Muslims, while the left tend to be either neutral or pro-immigration (while many from the economic right are pro as well).

So by all means, feel yourself green and left (although if you want to be a member of political party, you should read their manifests before joining), as you have all the liberty to be anti-immigration and a liberal left - even if this might mean contradicting some of your goals in terms of human rights and equality.

What is the point of this argument? I havent heard of this incident, but lets suppose its true. Ok, there was an evil Finnish person doing an evil thing. How is it related to this argument? Are you trying to say that Finnish people on average rapes as often as muslims of Denmark? Such incidents committed by Finns are not that common.

No ethnicity is perfect, and no ethnicity is all bad. It seems to me that Sennels wants to say that this incident in Denmark was just an instance. But it was an instance that made him to think of these questions and realise things like that there are problems with integration, that on average some ethnicities commits rape or other crimes more often than the others, etc. How would a different instance in Finland affect on these conclusions? Sennels doesn't say we should generalise things based on instances, so the instance you gave seems irrelevant. If someone "wakes up" and starts demonising ethnic Finnish minority of European Union based on such a horror story on the news, then it's of course sad, but its not an analogy of what Sennels is doing.

What was the point? The point was the arbitrary moment when Sennels suddenly -woke up' to the reality - when he has been oblivious of the shortcomings of his own nation. The point is exactly that one should not demonize any group based on some horrible incidents such as afore-mentioned. I find it utterly incomprehensible that you find no problem in that. It is just a personal note on my behalf, that I find his 'wake up call' arbitrary, and I believe he was more influenced by his hidden prejudices than he would admit. But that's imho. The analogy was ridiculous exactly because I find Sennels''wake up call' quite ridiculous - and reading his comments he does seem to generalize these acts as something 'inherent in Islam', when he says for example that 'Quran bids to do criminal acts', and that Muslims have an 'aggressive, chauvinist nature' more than others, etc. etc. It's like he sees all Muslims as potential rapists and attackers that drag girls from hair on a public street. Imho.

Some ethnicities commit rape more often than others? Firstly, are we now talking about ethnicities, races, religion, or culture? I am confused. Secondly, it is by no means a 'Muslim' thing to rape women on the streets. If anything among some (some!) Muslim refugees, rape is a tool of war they have grown up with - used by Christians, Asians and other nations in wartime as long as man has lived, and it is a weapon, as it is a systematized method of violating the pride of the opposing group. Just as the rape camps held for Muslims were created to humiliate the Muslims, a rape can be seen as a way of humiliating those who have humiliated them - a regrettable cycle. But a) is it in their ethnicity or some other factors that make some rape? Really, what do you think, why people rape in the first place?, and b) is it not worrying that you don't see how common rape is in all parts of the non-Muslim world as well?

Again - we should separate 'ethnicities' and 'culture' from victims of war (and this particular sample group Sennels so likes to generalize from)! (by the way, American war veterans were known to be very sexually aggressive after the horrors they had witnessed (and committed) in war - rapes by veterans after the war was common. Many repatriated have serious problems with aggressivity (as well as depression etc.). Is it in their ethnicity, or is this something war could create? Perhaps Sennels could some some sweet generalizations from this sample group.)

EDIT: Fixed the quote tags.

[Koskela Suomesta]

My opinion: Your nick is quite offending and arrogant and obviously meant to be. Such an nick prevails your attitude in this area and doesnt help receiving your "message". Be informed that this your preselected mental attitude instead of neutral truth seeking is very visible. But usually most people discussing here doesnt care about such an lack of manners.

Anyway, these issues have been discussed here several times in other threads in Finnish and most of them have not specially (or at all) connected to Sennels interview. You could have participated to several threads here (in Finnish)for discussion of such items. So why did you brought them up in your own English only thread?  

Last but not least: Please learn the tags used in forum postings (buttons in text editing window) for quotations. Now your answers are very difficult to read.

[Martti Munne]

So, lets presume that the tendency to rape is generated by war. What would you do to prevent these war trauma based rapes in countries giving asylum? I believe that you agree that the war is no justification for raping?

By the way, could you give us some links to the rape statistics of war veterans, and to the sources RP asked for?

[M.E]

This was quite an extensive reply to Mr. Sennels - at least in length. I lack the resources to discuss it in detail so I just post a simple series of questions.

a) Do you acknowledge that there is a large ongoing problem with immigrants from certain parts of the world AND with their descendants?

b) If such problems exist and "professional" psychologists are as powerful and knowing as you insist, why do the problems remain unsolved even after several decades of the best efforts of authorities and academics?

c) How much longer do we have to put up with this sorts of problems?

d) You seem to suggest that majority of problems of African refugees/immigrants/asylum seekers can be explained by their war trauma. The question remains, is it our duty to take here massively damaged persons to burden the already overextended mental care system?

[Jiri Keronen]

Ethnic nationalism has not historically been found on the left

National socialism was a leftist political ideal that had a strong element of ethnic nationalism.

Why I simplified Sennels speaking mostly to the 'right wing' audience is because I thought it clear that we are talking about conservative right, not necessarily economic right

You are using the words as you feel they best suit your goals without thinking what they actually mean. Conservatism comes from the latin term "conservare" and it literally means and ideal to conserve the present values and traditions. Conservatism is defined by what is status quo. The status quo of today in most of the states of European Union is multiculturalism. Thus to be multiculturalist is literally to be conservative, that is; to be someone who tries or wants to conserve the status quo. Thus Nicolai Sennels is the antithesis of conservative, since he wants to shake the whole political system of his country.

So by all means, feel yourself green and left, as you have all the liberty to be anti-immigration and a liberal left - even if this might mean contradicting some of your goals in terms of human rights and equality.

You are making an assumption that to be of anti-immigration (which doesn't mean anything, since immigration is not a monolithic concept, but immigration happens of various radically different reasons and one cannot simply stack all different kinds of immigration under the same roof) stance is to contradict goals of human rights and equality. You don't have any proof for that and that is just your assumption and opinion. You have to understand that immigration has caused several of the current human rights crisises, like what is going on in Britain where they are implementing multitude of different legal systems at the same time. To implement different laws for different people depending on the situation is not compatible with human rights.

[I Work in Asylum System]

We are talking this primarily in context of immigration from countries like Somalia, Iraq and Afganistan. Do you seriously consider that adaptation of cultural straits from those specific countries would be desirable?

Thank you for being smarter than Sennels in his interview, and actually referring to certain more specific groups than 'Muslims'. Of course I could go on for ages analyzing afore mentioned 'cultures', but let's keep this short; - desirable? Which one? FGM? No. Forced marriages? No. Honor killings? No. And let's keep this clear; 1) what evil customs do they possess, that we would find undesirable?, 2) does this mean we shouldn't let them in at all? 3) what do we mean by 'adaptation'?

1) Burkha? - an Afghan rural tradition that was infrequently used before Taliban, and then taken up as a legal requirement during their regime. Today its use is again declining. Khat? - a Somali custom practiced widely, but also seen by many Somalis (about half if I remember) as a bad habit that should be stopped. Women not driving a car? - an Iraqi Islamists' practice to maintain control over the women, an essentially a political strategy but facing increasing rebellion on the streets of Iraq, and not endorsed by a majority of Iraqis.

Shar'ia? - a tradition followed also by some fundamentalist Jews and Christians, but not implemented in all Muslim countries (mostly just Iran, Saudi Arabia and to some extent Iraq etc.). Most Muslim countries adopt Sharia together with secular law, while only Iran and Saudi Arabia use it in all aspects of law. Good info here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia_1.shtml

Of course I would not want Sharia here - and here we are again talking about integration being a two-way street; those who come here should not expect Europe to adopt Sharia as a holistic jurisprudent system, and in fact majority do not expect this - it is well known that Sharia could not be implemented in a non-Islamic state. I do not see Sharia as a problem to Europe, and I do not think any exemptions that would violate our conception of human rights should be allowed.

In any case if we are only talking about afore-mentioned groups, I doubt Afghans, Somalis and Iraqis are gonna take over the world. (remember that Sharia in Afghanistan is maintained with the force of fear, Somalia is in eternal war limbo and Iraq.. )

2)No. See below.
3) adaptation (WikiBible) = "is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat.[1][2] This process takes place over many generations,[3] and is one of the basic phenomena of biology"
Note: 'many generations' . This involves some measure of change from both sides (integration/assimilation). This does not require in any way that customs from immigrants are necessarily taken as they are, and the customs do not have to remain, and some disappear. We already went through this. You can already see the process of adaptation of Muslims in the West. Good source is http://pewglobal.org/ . Remember that what we are dealing with is a very new phenomenon - it's not gonna happen next year, but some change is inevitable. I find it naive and short-sighted to think otherwise, and deny that cultures and customs evolve, adapt and change.

That there exists culture in Finland should be self evident. Finland and it is people could not be described just by listing the biological characteristics of the members of species Homo Sapiens living in it. Likewise it should be self evident that most of the characteristics of Finnish culture are not to unique to it, but the nevertheless (if you've lived in other countries, you should have noticed) the combination of them is at least somewhat different from what you see in any other country. The cultures we have most in common are (for historical reasons) typically those geographically closest.

I wasn't saying there doesn't exist culture - but I questioned you by asking 'what is Finnish culture' and from 'what does it need protecting from'. WHAT is Finnish culture, and is it something that is not allowed any room to change? Just because we can somehow 'feel' it, doesn't define it; the culture we 'felt' 20y ago has changed, and the culture we will 'feel' 50y from now will be different. This is my point! I refer to my previous post where I described what I see as 'culture'; cultures change! Why do they need protecting? You will not even notice when it has changed, and when your grandgrandgrand children one day wake up in a different culture, they will 'feel' it as their own as much as you feel this one as your own. Is the 'time-psychology factor' so hard to understand?

Interesting that in the name of "multiculturalism" some people in west Europe seem to advocate deliberate destruction of some cultures, namely their own.

You are making a fallacy here (often heard from 'you guys'); interpreting 'our' stand in the worst possible way, ridiculing it and missing the point. Deliberate destruction? How is 'deliberate isolation' of the culture from change not your stand then? Of course your are not advocating the extremist stand of isolating Finland from the world to preserve its culture, no more than I am advocating a 'revolutionary social engineering project that will annihilate our civilization as we know it'. Interesting that you would resort to such twisting of my stand. Accepting the realistic fact that cultures interact, change, adapt, etc. is nothing more than what it is.

Besides, 'multiculturalism' is an existing fact, not only a 'value' (to some). I don't see multiculturalism as a value in itself anymore than I see monoculturalism (which of course doesn't exist), but I see it as a fact, and through the process of globalization this fact has to be dealt with in new, innovative ways - not traditional, ineffective, unrealistic ethno-nationalist ways. 'We', the 'multiculturalists' (your name, not mine), advocate nothing more than realistic, sustainable approaches to accommodate this fact into the globalizing world while respecting human rights and equality.

If there were a sect here advocating following the every letter of Bible, especially old testament, I would be against mass immigration such people as well. That does not seem to be problem though. As an atheist I can note with some satisfaction that Christians have mostly managed to get rid off Bible...

Your last sentence seems very high and mighty - ever been to conservative Christian countries? You know that our part of the world is one of the most secular of all.

'Mass immigration' - here we get to another point. Our sense of proportions are different. To me the current amount of Muslims we are accepting into our society is not that 'massive', and I believe we could sustain even more of that. But also I see a limit to any 'mass immigration' - obviously we can't let everyone in in one go, no state apparatus or economy would handle that.

Hamas are much hated and despised by the vast majority of Muslims.

Do you have a source for that?

Why, thanks for asking: 

Barely a quarter of Palestines supports Hamas anymore (<25%) (Sept 2009):
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3112

January 2009:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1075/before-israels-invasion-hamas-popularity-was-waning-among-its-neighbors-even-in-gaza-itself

They seem to be pretty good with PR. Pity that the Palestinians (Arabs in general) haven't had much leaders genuinely interested in the welfare of their citizens.

Indeed. But not all Arabs: e.g. Saudi Arabia has a welfare state. Not that the majority of the Western countries are very interested in the welfare either... or in fact any country in general, aside from few!

But these are our countries -don't we have a right to do things our way here? The rest of the world can do what they want in theirs (although I would prefer they would choose a path not leading people coming here seeking asylum (or "asylum")

Sure, by all means go and buy a self-help book if you feel like it, but if your buddy Jukka doesn't need it and prefers to seek help from his community, don't go and tell him not to do so as that wouldn't be individualist enough for you! Are we liberal or are we not? What on earth is your problem with Muslims relying on community more than self-help books? Ever been to Finnish countryside?

Your lack of understanding concerning asylum is worrying. While many immigrants are not entitled to asylum (and get rejected), these people come predominantly from Western or Northern Africa, India, etc. But Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia have been some of the MOST important sources of genuine asylum seekers, with a recognition rate up to 99,9%! So please, check your facts before you go on pickering on refugees.

Are we talking about real Islam or some abstract ideal Islam? It is the real Islam that generates the news.

No, it is the marginal (e.g. extremist) part of Islam that generate news. Have some media eye; normal life doesn't interest anyone. If you want to see it, go travel there, don't expect to find it on news.

(besides, referring to honor killings; around 5000 happen each year, whereas victims of domestic violence in some developed countries amount to 12000-20000/country)

You are equating non-lethal violence in other countries with honor killings?

Sorry, I was actually meaning KILLED by domestic violence a year - just forgot to put the word there. 12-20 000 get KILLED by domestic violence in some developed countries annually in one country!

First of all number of refugees entering the country on their own have been between few and few dozens annually. That is only tiny minority of the whole "humanitarian immigration". Secondly, even one would accept a moral responsibility over a larger group people, that would be moral responsibility to offer them shelter from persecution, not responsibility to support permanently healthy adults or tolerate criminal behaviour.

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. All asylum seekers granted asylum are refugees, and entitled to protection. There is no 'economically humanitarian migration' outside work visas, etc. Asylum seekers granted asylum are refugees who are through a thorough screening process found as eligible for asylum, and currently up to 99,9% of those coming from Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan are true asylum seekers, if you do not know this, check on the countries' situation! Believe me, I work in the asylum system. Every single somali in Finland deserve protection, and it is against international law, and moral responsibility, to send them back to Somalia. Period.

The suggestions you give are not bad, but if there lack a genuine motivation to learn forcing an immigrant to language class maybe just a waste of money.

I agree, there is a lack of political will. As you hopefully have understood by now, I am not defending the status quo of the European 'asylum crisis', I am definitely against it.

If one is not sufficiently motivated to study the language, then I have to presume one is not very motivated to be employed either.

Not true, and this would be clear if you worked with asylum seekers and actually understood them. Besides, I find especially male immigrants very eager to learn language. I would rather see the language training of the women also as mandatory, to give them more independence.

No, actually it is not clear. Because surely you are not trying to say that since other people have suffered genocide, colonization, cultural destruction earlier, we should happily invite anybody welcome anybody who wants to come here. Even if it ends up badly for us, it would not be the first time in history?!

I wasn't trying to say that and by now you should know better; not all have entailed genocide or colonization, and many cultures have co-existed together for long periods of time. What I AM trying to say is exactly that there is a stone rolling - the world is globalizing - and our responsibility is to guide that stone, not let it roll over others. I.e. not let things to get out of hand by closing borders and becoming extremists in ethnic nationalism, and not also open up borders full blow in one go and let everyone to come in. It is a holistic process and should be dealth holistically, from top to bottom and bottom up. The most dangerous approach to me is the ethnic nationalism the extreme right is trying to advocate, as that is not only dangerous, but unrealist and bound to failure.

Even if one saw this form of global monoculturalism would be considered desirable, I would want the resulting mix to resemble more of our  end the cultural spectrum than the one in Somalia.

Hey, me too, but do you really think the humanity in 1 million years will be like Somalia? It probably won't be the copy of our society either. In any case, whether or not cosmopolitanism is desirable, it is not something that belongs to this 'crisis' per se.

The road by the way is not travelled in both directions. Here the slogan seems to be "Europe belongs to everybody" while elsewhere it is "Africa belongs to Africans". Which taken into it's logical conclusion, and considering the relatively populations and birth rates would mean "Europeans do not have place anywhere"

Integration is travelled in both directions. But now you are talking about migration. This is interesting! Because now we get to the reasons of a) refugee flows (war, natural disasters, etc.) and b) economic inequalities (West vs. Rest). Here we could dwell on ages!

And what do we do with those member of Muslim immigrant community that want no such thing? (I do not claim this equals all of them)

I do believe we should have zero tolerance for any human rights violations not accepted by us, such as FGM, etc. Those who enter a country should realize these are illegal acts, and should be punished as such. If they are, e.g. Somalis, who cannot be sent back to their home countries but want stubborningly to practice FGM (not true actually, as FGM is disappearing among Somalis both in Somalia and in the diaspora), they will either go to prison, or they will have to lose the tradition. The condition that we save their lives is that they give up FGM. I do not deny this. But this does not in any way refute other multicultural or pro-immigration arguments. Efficient law enforcement and education are the key to this.

Point in between; my principal claim is that 'culture' should not trump human rights. That is, to protect 'Finnish culture' would end up denying the rights of people to apply for asylum, something I find abhorrant. This goes both ways; FGM should not be allowed because of it's a tradition - I am by no means a cultural relativist!

In some cases, such as for those who would wish Sharia to be implemented as a holistical jurisprudent system (again, a minority, but there are people who think this - mostly male), a system chould be created in collaboration of Sharia-implementing countries. I.e. I'm proposing a relocation programme with incentives, control, monitoring and safety mechanisms, and strict conditions on the protection of the relocated people's rights (so that they don't become enslaved, imprisoned, etc. upon arrival). This is unfortunately a very long, expensive process, which needs the receiving country to provide insurance of the welfare of the relocated, and the deal would have to be good enough so that the conditions are held -and I'm sure this is a utopian ideal and there will never be political will to try it.

In general I find the biggest problem of the current 'crisis' the lack of 'burden-sharing' mechanisms between EU member states and other countries. Forcing some countries to take on an unfair proportion of asylum seekers (such as Malta and Spain) as opposed to other countries (such as Finland), is harmful both in short and long term. The current Dublin II agreement should be revised, to at least guarantee some exemptions for those countries that are drowning under the pressure. (The Dublin II states that the country which receives the asylum seeker for the first time he enters Europe has to process the application).

Other issues concern development and resettlement programs for 3rd world countries (which, in the end, receive the biggest amount of refugees - millions - => as opposed to 75 000 in Europe in 2008), amending the current mandates for humanitarian intervention and int. law, all the way up to improving small-scale integration programs from mixed schools (polarized schools show more violence and racism) to not incentives for moving out of (or into) ethnic clusters in cities. The 'cure' for the crisis is not one- or two - but hundred-fold, but it is the only sustainable alternative for the status quo.


P.S. I see there has been 5 new messages while writing this one, so I hope to be able to comment on some of them asap. Happy to see this is provoking responses!

[Eino P. Keravalta]

So this writer is arguing that the tendency to rape is generated by war? Maybe partly so. But I think then again we must ask what is war generated by? Environment? Political structures? Economy? Of course these agents are involved, but what are they generated by? I believe that the answer can be summarized with one word: genes.

People create societes, people create economy, people mould environment. It is evident that this is a two way street but still the genes are strongly affecting the behaviour of people which in turn creates material conditions and structures of society and economy.

To some degree we can explain things by outer conditions but we must go deeper. By what are the outer conditions created by? The answer lies on the inner core of the human being whether called genes or something else.

PS: sorry for my miserable english

[Karri]

Most interesting read, and I am far too lazy to question it. However, the only shortcoming is your contrast between honor killings and domestic violence. Are you suggesting that these two are alternatives? Just because there are honor killings doesn't mean that there is no domestic violence. If something I bet the domestic violence is much more rampant in countries with honor killings.

[I Work in Asylum System]

My opinion: Your nick is quite offending and arrogant and obviously meant to be. Such an nick prevails your attitude in this area and doesnt help receiving your "message". Be informed that this your preselected mental attitude instead of neutral truth seeking is very visible. But usually most people discussing here doesnt care about such an lack of manners.

Anyway, these issues have been discussed here several times in other threads in Finnish and most of them have not specially (or at all) connected to Sennels interview. You could have participated to several threads here (in Finnish)for discussion of such items. So why did you brought them up in your own English only thread?  

Last but not least: Please learn the tags used in forum postings (buttons in text editing window) for quotations. Now your answers are very difficult to read.

I thought my name was funny!

Well, Mr. Koskela Suomesta, I am deeply sorry for not having participated before in this forum, as it is so entertaining. This is in fact my very first time here! The reason I posted here was that this is where my friend had linked this interview, and I thought it the most logical forum for it! Why in English? Because the link posted was in English, and I thought of continuing the trend!

Sorry for not understanding tags, I am new to these forums. Sorry for upsetting you so bad, I did not mean it.  

[I Work in Asylum System]

So, lets presume that the tendency to rape is generated by war. What would you do to prevent these war trauma based rapes in countries giving asylum? I believe that you agree that the war is no justification for raping?

By the way, could you give us some links to the rape statistics of war veterans, and to the sources RP asked for?

I got my information from a study book I read a while ago in Australia, but if I find the title I'll put it here. It was a book about war's effect on the development of psyche, and it sited several instances when war veterans from all over the world - most commonly those who fought when young, even children - tend to show violent, even dangerous characteristic later in life. With quick googling I found these though, that might be of interest to you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-benedict/violent-veterans-the-big_b_157937.html
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3848/

To the question of how to help victims of war, we could write a book. In fact, plenty have been published. Unfortunately little councelling or mental health care is given to the war children. About war children:
www.child-soldiers.org
www.icrc.org
http://www.icrc.org/eng/children
http://www.childrenandwar.org/

But what is definitely NOT ok, is to send parents or the children back to their home countries (Somalia etc.). Something must be done of course - and I doubt that juvenile prison gives enough attention to the problems these kids suffer - especially in the hand of psychologists like Sennels! (sorry ).

But let's not forget that not ALL asylum children rape or do violent acts!!! In the end, even if a higher proportion per population than among Finnish, they are still a minority.

[I Work in Asylum System]

Definitely must keep publishing these Nordic interviews as they seem to get a lot of attention from da tolerators. 

Which part did you understand as 'tolerant' (of abuses or HR violations?)?

Finnish culture is whatever we Finns say it is.

Great! I say Finnish culture is a welcoming and a lovely environment for liberal Muslims and liberal Finnish to live happily ever after. I think Mohammad, 20y, who speaks fluent Finnish and has a job, is Finnish.

And from whoever who does not take our culture as granted.

...from me then. I take nothing granted.

[I Work in Asylum System]

This was quite an extensive reply to Mr. Sennels - at least in length. I lack the resources to discuss it in detail so I just post a simple series of questions.

Thanks for participating in a constructive way. I like you.

a) Do you acknowledge that there is a large ongoing problem with immigrants from certain parts of the world AND with their descendants?

Yes, and if you read my critique thoroughly, you would have understood this. I do not accept the status quo.

b) If such problems exist and "professional" psychologists are as powerful and knowing as you insist, why do the problems remain unsolved even after several decades of the best efforts of authorities and academics?

Did I say they are powerful? I hope I have made it abundantly clear that the problem is multifaceted and therefore needs reform in a holistical manner, from top to bottom and bottom up.

So therefore I do not understand this question. I do not see psychologists as 'the cure', and I do not think we have done the best possible job of integrating immigrants. I am a critic of the status quo, not an advocate of it.

c) How much longer do we have to put up with this sorts of problems?

Good question, and fair one - but something I cannot answer. In general we are talking about a process of adaptation that happens in the course of decades or centuries. This doesn't mean the status quo must last our life-time, but it needs a tremendous amount of political and public will to change it asap.

d) You seem to suggest that majority of problems of African refugees/immigrants/asylum seekers can be explained by their war trauma. The question remains, is it our duty to take here massively damaged persons to burden the already overextended mental care system?

War trauma is very simplistic an explanation, as obviously there's a lot more involved; not only the growing up surrounded by war, violence, hunger, loss of family members, but also the process of asylum (from journey to application to granting to settling in) itself which usually tends to destroy the hopefulness of the asylum seeker after a couple of years (it is this desperation I see every day, the disappointment of Europe's hostility, the unrealized dreams of a stable job, home and school for kids - the tears of a grown-up man who thought his kids would be safe and happy here, but are not.), etc.

Is it our duty? I am not saying we should start sending airplanes to Somalia and transport everyone here, of course not. But those who come to our borders and legally apply for asylum, and cannot be sent back to their home countries, should be taken in.  (and that's what we are doing; up to 99,9% get their asylum granted) It is not a question of burdening our mental health care system - it is a question of moral duty, and international law.

I have some good statistics somewhere... but the amount of only about 1,8% of our national defense armament budget goes to the asylum seekers a year, including reception centres and monthly social welfare. I have the data somewhere, maybe I'll put it here later... but the point is, that we are talking about priorities here, and until now, our government is not investing as much to mental health care as it should.

[Malla]

Is it our duty? I am not saying we should start sending airplanes to Somalia and transport everyone here, of course not. But those who come to our borders and legally apply for asylum, and cannot be sent back to their home countries, should be taken in.  (and that's what we are doing; up to 99,9% get their asylum granted) It is not a question of burdening our mental health care system - it is a question of moral duty, and international law.

Ok. Just a detail: How come many somalis travel to their warring native country for holidays and some even send their children to be schooled there? Is it our moral duty to support the (often re-united by means of so called anchor children) families remaining in Finland whilst their children are sent back to their extremely dangerous home country? Whose moral -- and practical -- duty is it to take care of those children and secure their safety?
Or: If the above mentioned happy holidays are possible, doesn´t it imply that the country is not, after all, that dangerous and thus asylum should not be granted on that basis?
(yes, yes, individual cases, not to be generalized...) 

[Pöllämystynyt]

Your question 'what makes them right wing' deserves a better definition of what I meant as 'right':

Political spectrum is not simplistically a horizontal right-left line (traditionally understood leftism and rightism) - and I apologize if I haven't emphasized my point clearly enough; there is also a vertical line, and your economic stance and conservativeness can be placed somewhere on this diagram (communitarianism and individualism or authoritarianism and libertarianism). Simplistically speaking, you maybe a right wing in terms of economics (neo-liberal), but not in terms of conservativeness.

I.e. the spectrum goes; the horizontal lines is progressive left on the far end, and conservative right on the other, and on vertical (economic) it goes libertarian vs. authoritarian. Fascism is an extreme form of conservative authoritarianism, and anarchism is an extreme of libertarian left. Yet there are always overlapping characteristic between these two polar ends, and a leftist can indeed be anti-Muslim (e.g. hard core Communists who are against all religion), and a rightist can be pro-Muslim. Yet overall majority of anti-immigrants present conservative right.

What you describe is one of the popular visualisations of the political spectrum, not the political spectrum itself. In that picture the "left" is on the left end and the "right" is on the right end, but defining right/left as conservative/proggressive is really misleading. Historically "right" has meant and still means for example supporters of free markets. You cant ignore this strong historic meaning of right/left spectrum. Actually the whole spectrum is very contradictory and therefore useless but lets play with it for a while.

So in politics, right generally refers to support for preserving traditional customs  - the horizontal right wing usually endorses ethnic nationalism and cultural conservatism Ethnic nationalism has not historically been found on the left, while 'civic/liberal nationalism' that was developed in Quebec and other places based its nationalism on common citizenship - regardless of ethnicity -, is often associated with the left. This is why I find it very hard to understand how a green and a left could endorse ethnic nationalism.

Why I simplified Sennels speaking mostly to the 'right wing' audience is because I thought it clear that we are talking about conservative right, not necessarily economic right (I myself stand somewhere in the middle when it comes to economics). Right wing in the modern politics, e.g. European elections 2009, presented the side of anti-immigrants and anti-Muslims, while the left tend to be either neutral or pro-immigration (while many from the economic right are pro as well).

Conservative Islam is one of the most conservative powers in modern Europe and clearly the biggest of conservative groups. Those you claim to be "conservative" are actually against that very strong conservative power. Many of those who wants to keep Europe as democratic and free are not conservatives at all. So they might not be neither so called "conservative rightists" or economic rightists (ie. true right wing).

So by all means, feel yourself green and left (although if you want to be a member of political party, you should read their manifests before joining), as you have all the liberty to be anti-immigration and a liberal left - even if this might mean contradicting some of your goals in terms of human rights and equality.

Its not just a feeling but a fact that I'm leftist green. There is no contradiction in my thinking while I oppose some harmful immigration. My immigration stances comes from my green and left core values. I value the diversity of cultures and therefore oppose massive movements of settlers to the lands of indigenous peoples because that is blending, melting and replacing these unique cultures with mainly Islamic monoculture. Islamising the areas doesn't make them "multicultural" but monocultural in the longer time scale.

I also strongly support development aid and demand more money to it. This is impossible in the present situation where mass immigration costs very much to the host countries that are alreaydy in deep debts. With the money that is used on one immigrant in Finland we could save thousands of people from dying or give education to hundreds if that money would be used on development aid. Immigrants are not the poorest of their countries, it costs a lot to sent people to other continents. Mainly the rich families can do that. Instead of helping a few rich people I would like to divert those resources to development aid and save hundreds or thousands of times more people that are really the poorest and most vulnerable of their countries.

Also I'm anti-fascist and therefore I oppose fascism and antisemitism that are a lot more popular amongst the muslims than amongst the indigenous Europeans. To save Finland from the wave of antisemitism and fascism that is already raging in some western European countries I oppose making intentionally Finland more Islamic with multiculturalism and mass immigration. Also I'm pro democracy and oppose suppressing democracy with suppressing free speech. This is what has happened in many of the more islamised countries where the human rights of critics of islamism are violated. Also I'm a pacifist and oppose creating more such conflicts that multiculturalism and mass immigration has caused to the areas where they have been "fully" implemented.

Also I'm not a conservative or nationalist. (I want to conserve nature and some other good things, but it doesn't make me a conservative in any relevant sense.)

It doesn't seem that there exists a "right wing" that happens to oppose your favourite politics, but it seems that you define people "right wing" because they oppose your favourite politics. But really, "anti-Islam" (what ever that means) is not the right or historic definition of "right wing".

[I Work in Asylum System]

National socialism was a leftist political ideal that had a strong element of ethnic nationalism.

I refer to my previous 'diagram' of horizontal and vertical meanings of left: Originally NS was a combination of counter-rev right and anti-liberal left (republicanism, socialism, and nationalism) - i.e. it wasn't 'left' in the traditional sense. It opposes capitalism and conservatism as much as communism, social-democracy and liberalism. On political diagram it is extremely on the authoritarian side of the line, together with fascism. Hitler's NS especially was pure anti-socialist authoritarianism.

So, NS was only leftist in regards of its welfare program, and its reliance on authoritarianism both come from right and left extremes. It is not 'left' in our context, meaning liberal, as opposed to authoritarian, and it is not for civic, but like you said, ethnic nationalism.

You are using the words as you feel they best suit your goals without thinking what they actually mean. Conservatism comes from the latin term "conservare" and it literally means and ideal to conserve the present values and traditions. Conservatism is defined by what is status quo. The status quo of today in most of the states of European Union is multiculturalism. Thus to be multiculturalist is literally to be conservative, that is; to be someone who tries or wants to conserve the status quo. Thus Nicolai Sennels is the antithesis of conservative, since he wants to shake the whole political system of his country.

As are you, apparently; In political theory, conservatism has an established definition, which goes as following:

CONSERVATISM = "political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. " http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/133435/conservatism

= "is a political attitude and philosophy that advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically,[2][3] thus emphasizing stability and continuity"

Cultural conservatism (your branch) = "Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture. The culture in question may be as large as Western culture or Eastern culture or as small as that of Tibet. Cultural conservatives try to adapt norms handed down from the past."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism (Wiki! )

And hey, 'multiculturalists' do not endorse the status quo, and no one is trying to preserve it. I wish you would have read my comments with more care. I have mentioned about the status quo in my above comments. Even using your own terminology, you would hit the air. We are first and foremost reformists, not conservatives, not revolutionaries.

El conservar es diferente del transformar!

You are making an assumption that to be of anti-immigration (which doesn't mean anything, since immigration is not a monolithic concept, but immigration happens of various radically different reasons and one cannot simply stack all different kinds of immigration under the same roof) stance is to contradict goals of human rights and equality. You don't have any proof for that and that is just your assumption and opinion. You have to understand that immigration has caused several of the current human rights crisises, like what is going on in Britain where they are implementing multitude of different legal systems at the same time. To implement different laws for different people depending on the situation is not compatible with human rights.

I agree on the definition of immigration -part, and here I refer to my first paragraph of my first critique; I was generalizing something that was obvious to make it clearer; we ARE talking about immigration of Muslim asylum seekers, after all, aren't we?

I also repeat what I said about not endorsing status quo. Also see my comments above on human rights and sharia.

Granted that I define your stance of 'anti-immigration' in the way I believe 'your way' would lead if you could decide to stop Muslim immigration altogether and close borders for them. Perhaps you are not as strict as that - many anti-immigrants merely wish tighter control of the borders. But regardless of your stance - that I find a bit of a slippery slope towards extremism - there are indeed extreme outcomes from extreme measures. So let's define anti-immigration in the above comment of mine as 'anti-Muslim immigration to Europe'; what does this mean? This means that when an asylum seeker comes to our borders, we would turn them back, or send them to another country, disregarding their personal safety. This would mean, that we would neglect our 'Kantian' responsibility to help those at our door in need. This would also be against Western liberalism in essence, as we would be restricting the freedom to choose religion. In the very core of liberal values, we are also restricting freedom of movement - something not all liberals take for granted, but what I see as in the bottom of ideal liberalism. ..I could go on like this, but how are you supposed to make me see that you are protecting human rights by being Anti-Muslim-Immigration-Advocate? Sorry, I just cannot see that.

[I Work in Asylum System]

So this writer is arguing that the tendency to rape is generated by war? Maybe partly so. But I think then again we must ask what is war generated by? Environment? Political structures? Economy? Of course these agents are involved, but what are they generated by? I believe that the answer can be summarized with one word: genes.

I don't worry about your english, but about your social darwinism. I hope you knew that biologically speaking there are no races, and some black Africans have more genes  in common with some white guys than with fellow Africans.

However, the only shortcoming is your contrast between honor killings and domestic violence. Are you suggesting that these two are alternatives?

That was indeed a very generalized out-of-the-top-of-my-head comparison. Surely I wasn't suggesting that, as should be clear. I guess it was not, sorry.

Ok. Just a detail: How come many somalis travel to their warring native country for holidays and some even send their children to be schooled there? Is it our moral duty to support the (often re-united by means of so called anchor children) families remaining in Finland whilst their children are sent back to their extremely dangerous home country? Whose moral -- and practical -- duty is it to take care of those children and secure their safety?
Or: If the above mentioned happy holidays are possible, doesn´t it imply that the country is not, after all, that dangerous and thus asylum should not be granted on that basis?
(yes, yes, individual cases, not to be generalized...) 

Because, Malla, wars have elites, people in power, rich dudes as much as poor, destitute victims. In fact, it is a fact that some of those Somalis who fly to Finland come from wealthy families - which doesn't exclude the possibility that their lives are in great danger. Some of them come from middle class or lower middle class, and their families have united to pay the fare of one person. The poorest of the poorest are never asylum seekers in Europe - they simply cannot afford even to pay for the boat.

This doesn't mean that these people do not need protection. Just because you have a house and maybe a small business doesn't make you safe from the soldiers. A somali friend of mine saw his business man dad killed and slashed with machetes by some soldiers who wanted to take his car and rob his shop. After that they raped her mother and the other sister, while the other managed to escape. He and the other sister were the only ones to survive. This was less than 2y. ago. He saw many of the households around him experience the same. If you think about a happy holiday, I believe you are mistaken. Safe? You go there then!

There is also something you should understand about the war in Somalia. Don't imagine WWII; just because there is constant violence, and frequent fights, doesn't mean you can't spend a few days in silence - the population is huge after all. Besides, parts of Somalia, the autonomous regions of Buntuland and Somaliland are considered safe. Yet being autonomous and secessionist regions, not all Somalis can go there either. Most dangerous area, and the most common source of refugees, is still the region of Mogadishu.

I am so tired of trying to tell people that the Somali in the street really deserved his refugee, and is not here to take advantage of you. Why is it so difficult for so many to understand this. You just stubborn or what?

And yes, of course as you probably will say next, there are always people who slip through the system, like former persecutors themselves. Unfortunately there are cracks like these - that I don't like either. There is also a problem in identifying a persecutor. Is a persecutor a child soldier who has been forced to kill by threatening to rape his mom? Or is it a soldier who has never known any better than fighting and only obeys orders? These are difficult questions and I would hope people to understand the background of war victims a bit more. But it shouldn't cover the essential question; should we, or should we not, accept asylum seekers from conflict countries (Muslim or not, as we are supposed to not discriminate religion, colour or ethnicity)? I vote yes. Surprise.

Somalia today:
http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/55866/2009/11/1-143347-1.htm
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,SOM,456d621e2,4ab892252,0.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/somalia.htm

[Karri]

More interesting question is what we are supposed to do with asylum seekers. Wait for the conflict to end and send them back? Adapt to them? Or simply offer them a chance to have a new life here as long as they adapt to our ways? Because as long as they do not adapt they are nothing but a burden to our society, and in fact not part of the society itself.

[I Work in Asylum System]

What you describe is one of the popular visualisations of the political spectrum, not the political spectrum itself. In that picture the "left" is on the left end and the "right" is on the right end, but defining right/left as conservative/proggressive is really misleading. Historically "right" has meant and still means for example supporters of free markets. You cant ignore this strong historic meaning of right/left spectrum. Actually the whole spectrum is very contradictory and therefore useless but lets play with it for a while.

You didn't read what I said about the economic dimension of the spectrum? I have in my opinion made it clear that in this discussion, when I refer to extreme right, I do not refer to libertarians, but the conservative, ethnic-nationalist right. I also mentioned that these 'labels' are overlapping and vague, but this indeed is the classical vertical-horizontal model of political spectrum. Simplistic? Yes. I never said it wasn't. It was to give you an idea. But I did indeed emphasize the two-dimensional character of the model, which you can find here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Anyway we are splitting hairs here. Back to business:

Conservative Islam is one of the most conservative powers in modern Europe and clearly the biggest of conservative groups. Those you claim to be "conservative" are actually against that very strong conservative power. Many of those who wants to keep Europe as democratic and free are not conservatives at all. So they might not be neither so called "conservative rightists" or economic rightists (ie. true right wing).

Indeed, and part of this discussion has been, who are these Muslims in Europe anyway? I have in my opinion already covered parts of this topic, when talking about the current trend of European Muslims, and the differences between extremism and average (and of course liberal and conservative Muslims).

IF it would be the case, that all the Muslims in Europe demanded conservative Sharia to be applied, then I would agree with you - as I said, it would stand against our conception of human rights! But it is ignorant not to see the other degrees of conservatism among Muslims, especially when the trend of liberalization is so big. (Did you check the PEW or any other sources?)

I do find it contradictory for a human rights advocate to promote closed borders and rejection of legitimate asylum seekers based on a fear of 'Islamic invation of Western values'. I assume you're not that extreme, being green leftist and all, but I just wanted to say.

Its not just a feeling but a fact that I'm leftist green. There is no contradiction in my thinking while I oppose some harmful immigration.

Hey, me too! Did I ever say that I promote open borders, let everyone come in and now!?

My immigration stances comes from my green and left core values. I value the diversity of cultures and therefore oppose massive movements of settlers to the lands of indigenous peoples because that is blending, melting and replacing these unique cultures with mainly Islamic monoculture. Islamising the areas doesn't make them "multicultural" but monocultural in the longer time scale.

And obviously I disagree with your fear that Islam is gonna take over the West. I fear you may have exaggerated a bit.

I also strongly support development aid and demand more money to it.

Here we disagree, at least to some measure. Most of the aid is useless. I am more into the individual-based initiatives such as Grameen Bank method. But anyway..

Immigrants are not the poorest of their countries, it costs a lot to sent people to other continents. Mainly the rich families can do that.

The asylum seekers to the North range from lower middle class to rich. The AS who come by boats range from lower middle-class to middle class. Often up to a dozen individuals joint their money to pay the fare of one person - and the journey to reunification or the first remittances can take up to 10-15 years. The investments are HUGE, otherwise we would see a LOT more refugees in Europe!

And as much as somebody might like to turn back a 'rich' AS, he might actually BE in danger - money doesn't help, in fact insome countries it can turn against you!

Also I'm anti-fascist and therefore I oppose fascism and antisemitism that are a lot more popular amongst the muslims than amongst the indigenous Europeans. To save Finland from the wave of antisemitism and fascism that is already raging in some western European countries I oppose making intentionally Finland more Islamic with multiculturalism and mass immigration. Also I'm pro democracy and oppose suppressing democracy with suppressing free speech. This is what has happened in many of the more islamised countries where the human rights of critics of islamism are violated. Also I'm a pacifist and oppose creating more such conflicts that multiculturalism and mass immigration has caused to the areas where they have been "fully" implemented.

Very nicely you justify your islamophobia, but I must disagree in so many ways that I have already repeated here that I care not to repeat anymore.

Also I'm not a conservative or nationalist. (I want to conserve nature and some other good things, but it doesn't make me a conservative in any relevant sense.)

You do seem to want to conserve 'Western culture' from 'evil Islam', making you quite an ethno-centric conservative to my taste.

It doesn't seem that there exists a "right wing" that happens to oppose your favourite politics, but it seems that you define people "right wing" because they oppose your favourite politics. But really, "anti-Islam" (what ever that means) is not the right or historic definition of "right wing".

True, anti-Islam isn't necessarily (even Communists could be that) - but ethnic nationalism mostly really is in today's politics. It is not my definition anyway. (see above) I do find it very contradictory to claim to be a liberal and pro-human rights, unless your definition of liberal and human rights differ from the mainstream.

Really I think you seem like a sweet person, but I just think you have exaggerated the danger of Islam so much that you can't see the head from the tail anymore. If you are really into the issue, there are many ways how to 'test' whether your fear has any foundation. Just don't take it from granted from what the xenophobic public discourse lets you understand.

Islam is not Islamism. Religion and politics shouldn't mix (e.g. sharia), and that is what many Muslims think, but what all Islamists disagree with. The current trends on the popularity of IslamISM as opposed to Islam as a peaceful religion, can be found e.g. in the above links I have given.

[Lemmy]

A somali friend of mine saw his business man dad killed

So did my Colombian friend. Its called "crime" and happens in third world countries. Cry me a river. If its not "safe" explain to me exactly why do then these Somalians travel "back home" and send their children there??

I am so tired of trying to tell people that the Somali in the street really deserved his refugee, and is not here to take advantage of you. Why is it so difficult for so many to understand this. You just stubborn or what?

Only a fraction of those people in the streets are "refugees" in any case. Explain to me why aren't there any Somalians or others in the streets in Estonia? Oh, so they don't have welfare in Estonia? And you are trying to explain to me they're not here taking advantage of our welfare system? Why is it so difficult for you to understand this. You just moomintroll or what?

Lemmy, keep Ad Hominen attacks to yourself, please, or refrain from responding or taking part in the discussion.

That's all.

Greets, Mörökölli

[Lemmy]

Did I ever say that I promote open borders, let everyone come in and now!?

Yes, thats is actually what you are saying - you believe in sob stories of people who came in on a pumpkin driven by mice. You're acting in the very manner of an "useful idiot" as Stalin said of Western socialists during the Cold War. They however never went and experienced the life back in the good old days of the Eastern Bloc to experience the results of their idealism. Back then it was working for "peace and socialism" today its working for "multiculturalism". Both ideologies were designed to destroy the West - from the inside. What you should do is go live the joys of your proposed "multiculturalism" instead of wanting to destroy something you have.

And obviously I disagree with your fear that Islam is gonna take over the West.

Its not a "fear" - its happening because of these "useful idiots" are bending over not realising they are giving more and more rope to one day hang themselves. Libertarian ideologies do not work if you give in to extremists. Thats a fact but the people are blinded of their own ideology.

Most of the aid is useless.

Oh but it is useful to the people in charge they have no incentive in bettering their own populations life. Say, have you ever given aid to India? I'd rather people went contributing directly to their nuclear programme while they are at it.

[I Work in Asylum System]

Great! Now let's have a referendum and find out what the rest of us Finns have to say.

The tyranny of the majority?

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Period.

Are you questioning whether asylum seekers are legitimate? No, of course not all; in fact, 70% of asylum claims in 2008 were rejected. The rest were granted protection. You don't think the screening process is tough enough? Almost all Somali AS were accepted - those rejected are usually persecutors themselves. You wanna go to Somalia and check whether the people really deserve protection?

Or are you just confusing the different statuses that are granted for accepted asylum seekers? It can be confusing, I don't blame you; refugee status, subsidiary protection and humanitarian protection are all different refugee statuses that entitle the AS protection.

Statistics from 2008:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-09-092/EN/KS-SF-09-092-EN.PDF

"The EU27 Member States granted protection to 76,300 asylum seekers in 2008, according to data issued today by the European Commission. The largest groups of beneficiaries of protection were citizens of Iraq (16 600 persons or 22% of the total number of persons granted protection status), Somalia (9 500 or 12%), Russia (7 400 or 10%), Afghanistan (5 000 or 7%) and Eritrea (4 600 or 6%).
These data on the results of asylum applications in the EU27 are taken from a report issued by Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities .
Nearly 30% of EU27 asylum decisions at the first instance resulted in protection status."

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091208/local/eu-granted-protection-to-76-300-asylum-seekers-in-2008

What on earth might you be talking about? I can't guess, and you're not really explaining anything. Let's assume you 'just don't know what you're talking about'.

"More than two-fifths of the asylum seekers who came to Britain last year have been recognised as genuinely fleeing persecution and given permission to stay, according to annual Home Office figures published yesterday.
The 42% official "recognition rate" explodes the popular myth that nearly all asylum claims are unfounded, and is an increase over the 31% of claims given official status in the previous year, 2000."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/aug/01/homeaffairs

But I'm still happy for you since you've managed to find a job. In the asylum system.

Yes, at least I get to meet, like, REAL Muslims!


--Edit: tag.

[flammee]

(besides, referring to honor killings; around 5000 happen each year, whereas victims of domestic violence in some developed countries amount to 12000-20000/country)

You are equating non-lethal violence in other countries with honor killings?

Sorry, I was actually meaning KILLED by domestic violence a year - just forgot to put the word there. 12-20 000 get KILLED by domestic violence in some developed countries annually in one country!

In Finland, domestic violence of immigrants is much higher than domestic violence of finns. Risk of ketting killed is twice as big for immigrant women than finnish women.

And atleast among muslims, domestic violence is mostly done without being under influence of alcohol, while big part of domestic violence of finns happens when drunk.

http://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/artikkeli/Maahanmuuttajan+v%C3%A4kivaltarikos+on+useimmin+perhev%C3%A4kivaltaa/1135251825061


Speaking about domestic stuff, but not really associated with above, I have this opinion.

I think family reunification should be stopped. Although it's logical that there's threat to family, it's kinda illogical that we have quota of refugees and then we took ten times more because we don't count family reunifications.. Anyway, I believe that family reunification does not help integration, on the contrary, it removes the reason of integration to new society. It makes it esaier to immigrant of course, but that's just the problem, immigrant should be having hard time so he/she would really try to get along, not just relax with his/her family. Immigrant might even get false sense of integration, when actually the whole family is just isolated from society.

And, if immigrant would have relatives back home, probably he/she would sometime wish to go back, after all, getting asylum shouldn't be permanent solution. Just place to be when war is going on.


I have also question about family reunification.. How big proportion of the family dies on average before family is reunificated? What I mean is that if the asylum seeker is in immediate threat, it would be logical that his family is also. Still it seems that after the anchor child has gone, it takes probably year or two before rest of the family follows, so if there isn't much casualties of war in that bunch, it doesn't sound like there probably weren't so much need for asylum in the first place.. And it should be spesifically a casualty of war, not because of bad health system or any random criminal act, since those are "acceptable" stuff in third world countries.

[Siiseli]

Saw some bad things happen to people? You think all the refugees are here to escape some conflicts and build our society? And now you believe it's our sacred responsibility to carry all the world's problems here and just adapt? Yes, welcome to the club, we have seen quite a lot of argumentation like this before.

By the way, why is this topic english only?

[I Work in Asylum System]

So did my Colombian friend. Its called "crime" and happens in third world countries. Cry me a river. If its not "safe" explain to me exactly why do then these Somalians travel "back home" and send their children there??

Wow, so the war in Somalia is the same as the situation in Colombia? Have a look at the following links if you are not aware of what War (modern day warfare) is in Somalia.

See above about why some go back for visits.

Only a fraction of those people in the streets are "refugees" in any case.

All (up to 99,9%) Somalis, Afghans and Iraqis and others are refugees. The rest are asylum seekers, some of who will be granted asylum (Eritreans, etc - who by the way are largely Christian) and some who will upon rejection be returned or sometimes regularized. Most of the rejected come from e.g. West African countries.

Explain to me why aren't there any Somalians or others in the streets in Estonia?

If you're asking me whether a country's wealth doesn't matter when deciding where to apply, of course it does - if the AS has a possibility to choose. It isn't surprising that Scandinavia is a popular destination. Most people on the other hand who come by boats want to reach Italy, France or some other country. I don't really understand the point of your question - in any case Finland takes very few asylum seekers compared with other countries. If your point is to prove that all refugees are economic migrants, that is just plain ignorant and naive. A majority of AS to Europe are not entitled to protection - this I never denied. They are, as you would like to label them, 'economic migrants'. (But I really am not even sure, if we shouldn't consider some EM case by case basis as entitled to regularization.)

Why not in Estonia? Because it is a relatively unknown receiving country and has only been a member for a short time. Before 2008 Estonia had received less than 200 applications. This is probably increasing in future.

Did I already mention responsibility sharing?

Oh, so they don't have welfare in Estonia? And you are trying to explain to me they're not here taking advantage of our welfare system? Why is it so difficult for you to understand this. You just muumintroll or what?

Are you serious.  OMG

I have a feeling this discussion is losing its sanity soon and going down the road to fundamentalism. :/

Its not a "fear" - its happening because of these "useful idiots" are bending over not realising they are giving more and more rope to one day hang themselves. Libertarian ideologies do not work if you give in to extremists. Thats a fact but the people are blinded of their own ideology.

Sorry Lemmy, we are not - at least I am not -libertarian. Watch your terminology. I have nothing to do with them.

Oh but it is useful to the people in charge they have no incentive in bettering their own populations life. Say, have you ever given aid to India? I'd rather people went contributing directly to their nuclear programme while they are at it.

I agree. And no I haven't. I said already, I think most aid is useless.

[Zngr]

The point is that there is no 'Muslim culture'. There is 'Somali culture', 'Ethiopian culture', 'Saudi culture', 'Malay culture', and within these cultures, many other subcultures. Traditions and tribal customs are deeply integrated into many of these culture's Islamic practices, but it is not Islam itself – and not all Muslims either. Again, Sennels' experiences are limited to only a couple of these different Muslim 'cultures'...

I will repeat this many times, but Muslims are not only 'one' culture; they hold a variety of cultures, traditions, subgroups, identities, languages, histories...

...if Sennels were against some of these groups, I would take him more seriously (probably not...), but as he is declaring against all Muslims and the Muslim Culture, I find his generalizations ridiculous.

You yourself note Sennels operates wholly within the immigrant and Muslim community in Denmark, and thus I'm surprised I have to point this out to you. That is, he would not give counsel or engage in consultation with Malay or Nigerian Muslims, but instead is engaged with Turkish, Pakistani, Moroccan, former Yugoslavian and possibly Somali Muslims. Who live in Denmark, and who have in some way or other required social or psychiatric services.

It is quite obvious his findings and field of work, then, only includes Muslims from these ethnic groups in a certain geographic area who have been involved in certain circumstances which could probably be described for example as anti-social behaviour. When Sennels says "Muslims" he means the Muslims in Denmark, and the problem individuals at that, not all the Muslims in the world. He has found that there are patterns that correlate with many or most of these individuals. I find it alarming you require him to attack (or in your own words "go against") various other groups first or you will not take him seriously. Why should he? Sennels can very well write about the problems of the Danish Muslim community without doing extensive work or seriously studying, say, Indonesian or Thai Muslims. This does not however in any way make his case about Danish problem groups any less relevant.

I'm quite confident most readers of this forum understand this, and would not go around making sweeping generalizations regarding every single ethnic Muslim group on earth based on the findings of Danish psychologist working with criminal Muslims who live in Denmark.

His profiling only concerns the groups he works with. The part where Mr. Sennels shoves every single Muslim on Earth into this profile fortunately exists mostly in your subjective view of his work. I have not found a single text from him that claims to combine his experiences into some global, universally true and monolithic Muslim entity.

I'm also rather confident a major part of the readers of this forum are aware there are 1.3 to 1.5 billion Muslims with wildly varying traditions, histories, social contract and models of behaviour, as you yourself said, FGM and other practices we find abhorrent in the West are traditions from nomadic cultures that predate Islam, and that many of these customs were also common in what are currently secular Western countries not long ago.

I wish you would stop claiming Sennels, or anyone else, who writes about localized experiences with Muslims in other than a positive light also extends his views or analysis to Muslims globally (and thus somehow victimizes, or accuses every Muslim), but would rather show us why his work and conclusions regarding the less successful part of the Muslim community in Denmark are false.

This is mistake those enamored by political correctness or multiculturalism often make: if you attempt to discuss perceived faults of the Muslim community in Denmark, or Britain, or France you somehow magically attack the whole global and very diverse Muslim community. Not so. The so called conservatives (or what currently would be the progressives) understand this. It's the liberals (or what are actually now the conservatives) who make this claim.

Case in point: if someone writes about the violence of secular Finnish men, nobody will accuse the writer of attacking every white secular man with a Christian background collectively.

If someone writes about prevalent honour related violence, endemic criminalty or lack of gender-equality in any Muslim community or country, the writer is attacked by the PC-firebrigade making claims much like you do, i.e. that the writer somehow fails to appreciate all Muslims are not the same and is making "sweeping generalizations" even when none are made. Muslim grievance groups might attack the writer for being islamophobic. Left-wing radicals would attack him for being racist. And so on.

I agree with you in that the MUSLIM THREAT or whatever is highly exaggerated and that there ARE people who indeed group all Muslims into a monolithic collective (although I would not count Mr. Sennels nor most of the posters of this forum to that group) but you will find the latter to be as common within both the anti-immigration or the pro-immigration camp. Some who oppose mass-immigration typical of the last decades within EU, unfortunately, do see Muslims as conquerors encroaching on their territory, but then again, many multiculturalists and cultural relativists who still advocate mass-immigration (if just done "properly", a feat nobody this far has managed) see Muslims as a monolithic victim group or robots who respond to outside stimuli as if they had no will of their own, for example the Motoon debacle which "forced" Muslims to riot, burn and deal fatwas left and right. Although I'm sure you are not one of these, and as somewhat traveled, can probably observe Muslims as human beings like rest most of us do.    

edit: correction, most of us and added "... but would rather show us why his work and conclusions regarding the less successful part of the Muslim community in Denmark are false".

[Lemmy]

Wow, so the war in Somalia is the same as the situation in Colombia? Have a look at the following links if you are not aware of what War (modern day warfare) is in Somalia.

And you apparently don't know much about Colombia.

See above about why some go back for visits.

Because they are in no need of asylum nor refugee status?

If you're asking me whether a country's wealth doesn't matter when deciding where to apply, of course it does - if the AS has a possibility to choose.

So in other words, they are not fleeing persecution but flocking to where the money is.

If your point is to prove that all refugees are economic migrants, that is just plain ignorant and naive. A majority of AS to Europe are not entitled to protection - this I never denied. They are, as you would like to label them, 'economic migrants'.

You are the naive one claiming all AS are some sort of "refugees" when its a fraction of them. You are ignorant and naive in this discussion, not I.

Why not in Estonia?

Because they do not give welfare. In case you didn't know the Somalians first came via Estonia. I did not know there was a war there? Why didn't the Estonians then come over as refugees?

Did I already mention responsibility sharing?

What "responsibility" Finland has? We're not been or are in any war so they can freely share who are involved. You can freely toss your *own* money out the window, but I am not willing to be paying one penny for any welfare tourists.

Are you serious. 

You can be the circus act if I am not serious. Estonia has no refugees as they give out no welfare. Finland should adapt the Estonian legislation. After all it is an EU country so there is nothing wrong with their system.

I have a feeling this discussion is losing its sanity soon and going down the road to fundamentalism.

Multiculturalists have lost their sanity a long time ago.

Sorry Lemmy, we are not - at least I am not -libertarian. Watch your terminology. I have nothing to do with them.

You believe in double standards - different laws for different people in the same country. Of course libertarians believe everyone using their own money - while you apparently believe using in other peoples money.

[brr]

I am so tired of trying to tell people that the Somali in the street really deserved his refugee, and is not here to take advantage of you. Why is it so difficult for so many to understand this.

There is a very simple and effective solution to this problem. Lets make the refugee and "humanitarian immigration" business self-funding. Lets stop taking new immigrants through these channels until the current ones can generate enough funding (counting every aspect including social costs such as crimes etc..) to support newcomers. As long as the cost to society is zero or negative, there is no reason to suspect that people coming here are welfare tourists. According to statements by many politicians and those making a living in the refugee business, refugees and asylum seekers are an asset instead of a liability. Lets put this incredible claim to test and see what happens before taking any new ones. I bet that they are a huge liability, and therefore nobody can seriously claim that most of these people are not looking for an economic advantage. Some of them may deserve protection, but we do not owe them anything in the economic sense.