Vastaus Nicolai Sennelsille: haastattelun kritiikki *English Only!*

[Karri]

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.

But when do you start counting? Quite a big portion of the finnish industry was started by immigrants or with immigrant money. Of course, this was quite a different setting...but still.

[Pöllämystynyt]

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

You should realise that you are using the concept of "extreme right"  like a profanity to describe the people you disagree with. This way it might be easy for you to detect the enemy out there that you completely disagree with. Just disagree with someone and you can label him/her "right wing". That might seem practical because it seems to make the world easy to understand, but its a wrong way. Its a way to make complicated matters silly and "black and white". Its a way to make artificial borders around you. Its a way to demonise people without a having to listen what they want to tell you.

I know that you said you know the other definition of right/left, but it doesnt matter if you keep on using the "right" as a profanity.

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.

I dont support "closed borders". That would be just ridiculous. Closed borders is  a "straw man" argument; no one really supports it.

Now you are using the word "extreme" as a profanity too, to describe those who disagree with you  You presume that I am not that "extreme" because I am green leftist, and therefore not "right wing" (another profanity to describe those who disagree). You are playing with words, using profanities to mark the people who think differently than you.

Im not an extremist, but it's not because I happen to be a green leftist like you. Being in a same category with you doesn't make people non-extremists, and being in a different category doesn't make people extremists. I am not an extremist simply because I dont have any extremist ideology. Do people agree with your favourite immigration policy or not has nothing to do with their extremism or non-extremism.

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 by 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.

What do you mean by "my islamophobia"? You dont know me, you dont know my feelings and emotions. If I resist nazis I am not a "naziphobic" and if I resist islamic nazism I am not islamophobic. Its just anti-fascism. Also I defend the jews from antisemitic islamic hatemongering and attacs. This is not a phobia, it is a defense.

Phobia means a certain kind of a mental illness. Its quite ironic that you call other person pseudopsychologist as your main argument and use pseudopsychologist concept by yourself. By the way this pseudopsychologic term in its politicised sense is just a profanity too.

Those who resist drugs do not have drug-o-phobia and those who resist war do not have war-phobia. Its just defense. Anti-drug -people defends for example children from negative health effects of drugs and anti war -people defends for example people from being hurt. Similarly I defend Jews and homosexuals and other people from being attacked, democracy from being replaced with totalitarism etc.

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.

I am not "pro Western culture", I am pro every culture (including Western). All the cultures should be spared from replacing and melting so that the world would be rich in cultural diversity that I love.

I have not been talking about "evil Islam". I have been talking about Islam that has not interagrated in any Western society no matter how much the societies have tried. Islamic world is not a problem. Islam is not a problem. Muslims are intergrated in muslim countries. The problem that I am talking about is not caused by Islam but the artificial, politically motivated planting of muslim societies inside the Western societies. This planting happens by supporting immigration and non-integration (multiculturalism).

I'm not trying to change the muslim countries. Islam is not a problem in those countries, as least not more than a conservative religion generally is. The western countries problems with Islam are caused by immigration and multiculturalism.

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.

My definitions of "liberal" and "human rights" are mainstream. However, as far as I know most of the muslims and the muslim cultures are strongly against the human rights, liberalism and leftist values. Most of the muslims are "right wing" in the way you define them, also every academic muslim I know of. My resistance of islamising the west is a matter of both my green leftist values and what I know of Islam. Some other green leftist are pro islamisation. Their values are quite a same but in my view they don't know enough and what they know is distorted.

[Lemmy]

Quite a big portion of the finnish industry was started by immigrants or with immigrant money.

Quite a big proportion of industries in Africa & Asia were stared by Europeans with European capital. So?

[brr]

But when do you start counting? Quite a big portion of the finnish industry was started by immigrants or with immigrant money. Of course, this was quite a different setting...but still.

I don't mean the usual immigration in which authorities make sure the immigrant has means to support themselves and are not a danger to society. The refugee and humanitarian immigration is different, since the newcomers claim to be looking for refuge instead of a higher standard of living and they are not required to have labour skills, money, linguistic skills, or even willingness to work. So lets give them refuge, but not economic benefits. That has been a good motivator in the past in all kinds of societies to bring out the best in people. It would free the authorities from the burden of inappropriate asylum applicants, since there is no money and hence no reason to come here.

[Sivulause]

Excuse my poor English, argumentation and B.O. The absense of quotes and sources is also regrettable.
I thought I'd chime in nevertheless.
I see Kiko you entertain a very global mindset, when it comes to immigration and social responsibility. I give you two thumbs up, yet I have to say your perspective won't work for the people who are paying for it, the Finnish people. Their money, their perspective if you ask me.

Islamisation has never been the issue for me, nor has the survival of the ambiguous Finnish culture. I believe many here concur.

Said that, few fiscal realities to consider:
Development aid, which you consider somewhat useless (as do I), was around 950 million euros last year, give or take.
Cost of immigration centers alone was around 120 million, again give or take.
Cost of unemployed foreign dudes, around 560 million euros, yet again give or take.

These figures can be found from various statistics, courtesy of the Finnish Government.

Can these rough estimates be considered moderate expenses? In my opinion it's common sense to criticise whether or not tax payers should burden themselves with this extra cost.
How much humanitarian immigration should cost then? What would be the proper comparison? Total costs this year could exceed the amount that has been budgeted for, let's say, basic road maintenance.

No wonder immigration policies arouse controversy. I don't want to sound too small-minded, but that's kinda like the tax payers' own money. I give money to charity, Amnesty, or whatever if and when I choose to. My government doesn't get to choose for me. Like my bank teller doesn't get to transfer some of my money where he or she sees fit. Yes, for many it boils down to cents and euros. Truckloads of money, and for what? A shelter for a few guys, 'til they get to be unemployed in a country that usually has very little use for them, job-market wise?

But okay, let's forget about the money. It's boring.

I consider myself something of a world citizen.
I realize the existence of entities called nations, all holed up in their own sand boxes with their own currencies and what not. Complex thingies involving concrete thingies like economical systems, political systems or infrastructure, and then the less tangible thingies like culture. I understand, that if these structures we're forcefully torn down, I'd propably be a-okay with it. But, the world I so much like to travel and experience, would have a hard time. Finland included. Why force this never-seen-before-pace for the biggest-ever-demographic-shift? Just for the fun of it?

In my humble opinion, since the world is in a constant state of change, the best way to change is little by little. So slow, you can't even notice. That way, no conflict, no extremist-right-or-wrong-wing-movements, no fuss no hassle. Give it time.

If we're on the right track and these questions are irrelevant, why the commotion? why are we all having this delightful exchange of ideas?

[I Work in Asylum System]

Kylla te Adminit olette hauskoja. Ette parempaa nimea mulle sitten keksineet.

And you apparently don't know much about Colombia.

Do you really wanna go here? Should we start analizing the differences between the guerrilla strategy of FARC and the complex war in Somalia? I think if we keep on doing this 'mine's bigger than yours' you'll end up losing, as you still don't know anything about Somalia - or apparently Colombia either.   

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

So you didn't see. Ignoring my words doesn't make you look smarter.

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

I guess discussing with you is not very fruitful as you keep repeating your same comments and ignoring mine. Convenient for you, boring for me.

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.

Are you not able to read?? I did NOT say that all ASYLUM SEEKERS are refugees, I just finished saying how 70% of them are NOT legitimate, and those GRANTED ASYLUM ARE the legitimate refugees, please READ my comments if you want to make fun of them. 

Lemmy, here's some terminology for you, 101:
Asylum seeker = turvapaikanHAKIJA joka hakee turvapaikkaa
Asylum = turvapaikka
Granted asylum = turvapaikka myonnetty
Rejected asylum seeker = hylatty turvapaikanhakija
Refugee = pakolainen jolle on myonnetty turvapaikka (eli ent. turvapaikanhakija)

Eli Lemmy suomeksi jos et osaa englantia: mina juuri sanoin, etta 70% turvapaikanhakijoista saavat kielteisen paatoksen, eli EIVAT ole oikeutettuja turvapaikkaan.

- almost all of these come as 'economic' migrants from e.g. West Africa, WHEREAS those coming from Somalia (except nowadays with the exception of more peaceful Somali- and Buntuland) are granted asylum in almost 100% of the cases, MEANING that they are REFUGEES.

Capiche?

Cheeses! 

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?

It seems you do not know how Schengen asylum system works: the country where the asylum seeker first lands HAS to process the application. I am not familiar to what you are referring to and perhaps you could clarify; under the Schengen treaty it wouldn't be possible for Finland to take asylum seekers from Estonia, as Estonia would have to process them.

Somebody tell me more about this if you really KNOW something about it. I haven't heard of Somalis coming 'first' to Estonia and then Finland.

..unless you are referring to family reunification? In that case I am surprised they went to Estonia in the first place, and not directly to Finland. FR between European countries is a long and arduous process, and not very common as far as I know.

..and sure, refugee or not, I would choose to come to Finland than go there. No surprise there. Refugees are also allowed to dream.

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.

Everyone has a responsibility - we are by the way also under treaties. And if you really want to get down on it, we can ask whether we can really escape any resp. to help, when our progress owes largely to the colonial powers and their capitalist extensions. You think Finnish progress was born out of the blue, without even indirectly exploiting others? Who's naive?

Just because you see legitimate refugees as welfare tourists is really your problem, but it's not founded on facts OR morals. It is your belief, thus I just choose to ignore it. Otherwise I'll be talking to something similar to a religious fanatic.

You can be the circus act if I am not serious. Estonia has no refugees as they give out no welfare.

Italy and Spain don't either - and they have a bunch of asylum seekers. Many other European countries don't either. The real welfare countries get only a fraction of the asylum seekers in Europe. Stop complaining.

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.

So you checked what libertarianism means?  Then you realize I am not one - as I like taxes and I like to give some of them to the asylum seekers. I'm a so-called liberal egalitarian. So that you know.

I also never said I believe in different laws in the same country. I wish you would start reading my texts and not leaf them through and misread them. On the very contrary, dear Lemmy, please refer to my earlier comments and stop punching air. It's boring for us all.

Said that, few fiscal realities to consider:
Development aid, which you consider somewhat useless (as do I), was around 950 million euros last year, give or take.
Cost of immigration centers alone was around 120 million, again give or take.
Cost of unemployed foreign dudes, around 560 million euros, yet again give or take.
These figures can be found from various statistics, courtesy of the Finnish Government.
Can these rough estimates be considered moderate expenses? In my opinion it's common sense to criticise whether or not tax payers should burden themselves with this extra cost.
How much humanitarian immigration should cost then? What would be the proper comparison? Total costs this year could exceed the amount that has been budgeted for, let's say, basic road maintenance.

Thank you for a contributive post, nice that some people actually can discuss intelligently. I'm happy to answer.

Here some perspective to the money question:

Annual budget for the reception of refugees and asylum seekers in Finland (incl. health care, welfare, reception centres) equals (2008):

0,11% of the annual fiscal budget
0,38% of the social welfare and health care budget
1,8% of the pension fund
7,9% of the budget for materials for the national defence

http://budjetti.vm.fi/indox/tae/2008/he_2008.html

Are these not moderate expenses? Or could it be that some propagandists have exaggerated the sum a little bit, forgetting to mention that these millions only represent a tiny portion of the other budgets?

I agree with you, Sivulause, that there is a limit of how much we can financially invest to receive asylum seekers ( - and those we can't take in should be relocated as part of the burden-sharing programme that has been advocated so much). But do you not think the expenses have been exaggerated a tiny bit?

Why force this never-seen-before-pace for the biggest-ever-demographic-shift? Just for the fun of it?

I guess here's something that Homma people keep mistaking me - I don't know about other pro-immigration advocates, but I am not one of those who say hey, let's take everyone in right here right now. But I just can't see the threat that you are seeing; what ever shifts are happening are happening as a result of globalization - and humanitarian endeavours are, and should, be part of it. If we abstain from our moral responsibility to oversee that globalization is directed to a sustainable direction, then, just like with climate, we have some tougher times ahead of us. Polarizing the world into areas where Muslims can go, and areas where they cannot, will certainly not bring about a more stable world. I'm sure you also don't advocate that. I just can't see what the anti-Muslim refugee immigration advocates (let's call them anti-MRIAs or whatever) hope to achieve in the long run. But hey, I am NOT saying we should take them all in, whoever knocks the door! As it happens, we are not doing that now - and we can avoid, in the case of legitimate asylum seekers, a destructive impact simply by creating a better transnational system, in the EU and outside of it. This is what I advocate, first and foremost! Burden-sharing; Finland takes the share it can sustain, the rest take the rest. But we don't have the right to turn an AS away without somebody processing them.

In my humble opinion, since the world is in a constant state of change, the best way to change is little by little. So slow, you can't even notice. That way, no conflict, no extremist-right-or-wrong-wing-movements, no fuss no hassle. Give it time.

I agree 100%! This is one of the problem of many of my opponents; they expect everything to happen right now. But world is not a fast-food restaurant; like you said, things evolve little by little. But this doesn't mean we should choose a laissez-faire attitude - and no, I disagree with that 'we would be on the right track'. We're not completely at loss, but I myself am scared to shit (excuse my French) of the current political trend in the European migration politics. I am creeped out by the popularity of guys like Halla-aho who claims Islam is a pedophile religion (when Christiniaty isn't) and Sennels who claims that Muslims are a danger to our society. I am angry that EU is ok with Italy being ok with Gaddafi, who systematically abuses, discriminates, tortures and even kills refugees in its territory. I can't accept the inhumane conditions in the asylum centres in most Southern countries - some of which were criticized by many HR groups, and also by an ex-diplomat colleague of mine, who stated that they were worse than 'Philippine death rows and Palestine prisons'). I cannot accept racism, intolerance and xenophobia. That's all.

I'm an advocate of realistic, moderate reform, not revolution (forcing a change too quick), not status quo either. I am an advocate of human rights and global responsibility. I question the priority of the nation-state and culture over these responsibilities. Sovereignty should not trump human rights. We are in this boat together - if you think we need to unite to protect the climate, don't think we can stand by and watch when people get slaughtered, butchered and raped, or just killed by famine or destituted by poverty and inequalities. If you can't worry about other people than your neighbours in Kikkola, that's ok - but the few cents a month you pay to save a rape victims life shouldn't bother you that much - nor should the fact that there are strange looking people on the street who practice a different religion.

And that's my point.

[M.K.Korpela]

And that's my point.

Just a remark ; I'm a bit busy but do not go anywhere. I will return to your so-called points later.

[JulianAlexander]

No kumpi voitti?

Ei sillä etten osaa enklantia, mutta ei jaksa oikeasti lukea(jossa suurin osa on saman toistoa) jotta olis kiva jos referois taistelun ja kertois kuka voitti(anteeksi olen vähän laiska tän suhteen, mutta silti tuottavassa työssä)?? (ei pakolais työssä korjannen!)

Vaikka kyllä me tiedämme ettei kommareita pysty kääntään edes faktalla..

[Lemmy]

I guess discussing with you is not very fruitful as you keep repeating your same comments and ignoring mine. Convenient for you, boring for me.

Because you are the one blindly trying to explain to me these asylum seekers are refugees. For the majority of asylum seekers they are not, but blatantly abusing the system.

Are you not able to read??

You have trouble comprehending what you read.

Eli Lemmy suomeksi jos et osaa englantia: mina juuri sanoin, etta 70% turvapaikanhakijoista saavat kielteisen paatoksen, eli EIVAT ole oikeutettuja turvapaikkaan.

Yes but they get some resident status because of the idealists stupidity which de facto REWARDS the abuse of the system.

MEANING that they are REFUGEES.

No they are not.

I am not familiar to what you are referring to and perhaps you could clarify; under the Schengen treaty it wouldn't be possible for Finland to take asylum seekers from Estonia,

Time before Schengen or EU, mid 1990's and Johanna Suurpää. Do some of the research of how this immigrant and asylum business you are working in works. It was deliberately built up by communists after the USSR fell.  

Somebody tell me more about this if you really KNOW something about it. I haven't heard of Somalis coming 'first' to Estonia and then Finland.

The admins told me not to call you stupid - you then must be illiterate.
http://hommaforum.org/index.php/topic,740.0.html

Everyone has a responsibility - we are by the way also under treaties.

Exactly what treaties? None of them is different what eg. Estonia has made. Its just the generous welfare system that assumes people arent' abusing the system which they mostly are if you count entering the country on false pretenses, except for the 2% getting the actual refugee status.

Just because you see legitimate refugees as welfare tourists is really your problem, but it's not founded on facts OR morals. It is your belief, thus I just choose to ignore it.

Just as I ignore your claims that more than 2% are genuine UNCHR mandated refugees. You are a multiculturalist fanatic. You benefit from these welfare tourists, so of course you do not wish to have to get a real job. Instead of being a parasite like everyone involved in the asylum business.

Italy and Spain don't either - and they have a bunch of asylum seekers.

Italy and Spain - unlike Finland, have the grey economy that thrives on exploiting the illegals.

Stop complaining.

You stop the welfare seekers first.

Polarizing the world into areas where Muslims can go, and areas where they cannot, will certainly not bring about a more stable world. I'm sure you also don't advocate that.

Ah but you do not see - its the muslims themselves polarizing areas where people like police or fire brigades cannot go. And it destabilizing these places. You never read of Malmö or is your head so high up in the clouds you never read anything pertaining to reality?

I am an advocate of human rights and global responsibility

.

To have any rights you need to show you deserve them. If you are a criminal its not racism nor xenophobia to make you go packing. As for your global responsibility - it is not mine - Finland is a free country - I want to live in Finland - if you want to live in some multiculturalist paradise you are welcome to go there. Just don't bring your idealism here and try to make Finland multiculturalist and expect to get the money from dipping into my pocket. The more I read your asinine drivel, the more I am convinced that people working in the asylum business are idealistic and naive - "useful idiots".  

[Lemmy]

Kylla te Adminit olette hauskoja. Ette parempaa nimea mulle sitten keksineet.

And you apparently don't know much about Colombia.

Do you really wanna go here? Should we start analizing the differences between the guerrilla strategy of FARC and the complex war in Somalia? I think if we keep on doing this 'mine's bigger than yours' you'll end up losing, as you still don't know anything about Somalia - or apparently Colombia either.    

I'm not the naive ideologist here in this discussion. I base my arguments on facts. You will lose on each and every argument - you can rest assured of that which of us has better knowledge of things. I have never lost a debate to a barber. FARC is one of the five players, ELN and ARC and then the druglords each play a part in the conflict. As do the Colombian and Venezualan governments as well as the USA in its "war against drugs". Not complex?

[I Work in Asylum System]

You should realise that you are using the concept of "extreme right"  like a profanity to describe the people you disagree with. This way it might be easy for you to detect the enemy out there that you completely disagree with. Just disagree with someone and you can label him/her "right wing". That might seem practical because it seems to make the world easy to understand, but its a wrong way. Its a way to make complicated matters silly and "black and white". Its a way to make artificial borders around you. Its a way to demonise people without a having to listen what they want to tell you.

I know that you said you know the other definition of right/left, but it doesnt matter if you keep on using the "right" as a profanity.

I was using nothing as such, as not only is it a commonly known generalization (exceptions allowed), also in the late European migration tendencies it is indeed mostly the right, especially the extreme right (which many Homma represent, not all, but many, and I wasn't referring to you), that advocates strong anti-Islam policies. If you get offended for me not mentioning all the possible ceteris paribus-clauses that might exist, forgive me, but I'm not sure whether you can really escape the fact that anti-Muslim attitude is largely represented by the right, especially the extreme. I would appreciate if you didn't take it so personally that I use a terminology that those who do belong to right, wouldn't find offending at all. Granted, that extreme right is a minority in this discussion - but when I was talking about 'closed borders' and such (and of course I wasn't talking about absolute closed borders, but closed for African and Middle Eastern immigrants), this is something advacated mostly by the extreme - you and the majority anti-Muslim immigrant advocates belong to the more moderate group of more control of the borders. Does it change the fact in any way that the majority comes from right? Pollamystynyt, it is nothing personal against you!

And how does telling that a view is predominantly ´right´or 'left' means in any way demonizing it? I thought it would be just stating facts (albeit generalized).

I dont support "closed borders". That would be just ridiculous. Closed borders is  a "straw man" argument; no one really supports it.

Yes I wasn't referring to you; I was referring to an imagined HR advocate who would promote closed borders (not for everybody but for A. and ME Muslim immigrants). It would indeed be ridiculous. Therefore I assume you do promote the taking in of some Muslim asylum seekers?

If you do, then here's a question; when talking about integration - and efficient one that is, not the current model - do you believe a Muslim that would be such an under-represented minority could really integrate (e.g. 0,01%), or could it be, as I believe, that they have to have a reasonable representation in the population to really integrate?

Now you are using the word "extreme" as a profanity too, to describe those who disagree with you  You presume that I am not that "extreme" because I am green leftist, and therefore not "right wing" (another profanity to describe those who disagree). You are playing with words, using profanities to mark the people who think differently than you.

I don´t see most people in this forum that extreme, where did you get that from?  I might see the majority representing the right, but I wasn't saying everybody not thinking like me is an extreme rightist. I do refer to the extreme quite a lot, since some claims made are quite extreme - Sennels included. It isn't extreme for you to say that Quran bids to do criminal acts?? :0

Besides,  care to enlighten me of what exactly do you think about accepting even some Muslim immigrants? Or is it zero tolerance for their presence for you?

What do you mean by "my islamophobia"? You dont know me, you dont know my feelings and emotions. If I resist nazis I am not a "naziphobic" and if I resist islamic nazism I am not islamophobic. Its just anti-fascism. Also I defend the jews from antisemitic islamic hatemongering and attacs. This is not a phobia, it is a defense.

When you imply that Islam is going to take over our values, that is not only exaggerated, but I find it xenophobic to the least. Besides, you use the terms 'islamism' and 'islam' interchangeably, and I have tried to warn against this. Saying that we can't accept Muslims because they are against freedom of speech is not based on any fact, at all. Dictators and authoritarians are. But civilian Muslims? Btw Al-Jazeera happens to be one of the most liberal medias in the world. Please don't you also mix Islamism and political Islam with the religion and moderate Muslims.

Phobia means a certain kind of a mental illness. Its quite ironic that you call other person pseudopsychologist as your main argument and use pseudopsychologist concept by yourself. By the way this pseudopsychologic term in its politicised sense is just a profanity too.

'Islamophobia' is a commonly used neologism, that refers to prejudice and discrimination against Muslims. Don't confuse neologisms with pop. psychology. Neologisms are also the terms 'genocide','Californication', 'homophobia', 'pro-choice' and 'political correctedness'.

I am not "pro Western culture", I am pro every culture (including Western). All the cultures should be spared from replacing and melting so that the world would be rich in cultural diversity that I love.

Aaa! Now I understand! You are what I might say as 'conservative multiculturalists' who are usually also communitarians. That's what you advocate! First of all, you seem to see MC as a value in itself, something to be preserved (cultural conservatism!). Secondly, you are willing to restrict freedom of movement while allowing free movement of capital and goods, to preserve these cultures from mixing. You want to keep travelling Thailand and Cambodia so that you can enjoy the rich diversity of the world - while preventing Thais and Cambodians to emigrate from 'their part of the world' and mixing with us. You don't want Hadza to move into the urban areas even if they had security and welfare, because then the last hunter-gatherers would be gone.

I see! This is finally the parting of our ways; I'm a cosmopolitan multiculturalist, you're an isolationist-to-at-least-some-degree MC. I do not see MC as a value; I see it as an existing fact. My stand is to accomodate MC with the globalizing world - you are an anti-globalization advocate, or am I wrong? You wish to stop the wheels of global migration to preserve the existing cultures. If this is indeed the case, then you are, sorry, part of the (extreme) cultural conservatisve group. But hey.... that doesn't go hand in hand with what you said about not advocating closed borders? I am confused. So ok; tourism is ok, as long as there are no great movements from one country to another? Or minimal immigration is ok, as long as they don't change the existing culture?

I'm confused now.

I have not been talking about "evil Islam". I have been talking about Islam that has not interagrated in any Western society no matter how much the societies have tried. Islamic world is not a problem. Islam is not a problem. Muslims are intergrated in muslim countries. The problem that I am talking about is not caused by Islam but the artificial, politically motivated planting of muslim societies inside the Western societies. This planting happens by supporting immigration and non-integration (multiculturalism).

What - me not supporting integration? Who's making straw men now.

It seems we have different definitions of integration??

How much the societies have tried? Well, I don't think they have tried that much - and I have explained some of my reasoning above. I also don't think you can expect results in a decade or two. You also view integration as a one-way street just as Sennels, expecting Muslims to convert to Westerners. You also keep mixing political Islam with Muslims. Ever lived in London, let's say like pre-9/11? Many Muslims there are integrated nicely, it's the younger post-9/11 generation that's the biggest problem.

I'm not trying to change the muslim countries. Islam is not a problem in those countries, as least not more than a conservative religion generally is. The western countries problems with Islam are caused by immigration and multiculturalism.

Does this make you a cultural relativist? I guess so. In this we also differ. I do not justify human rights violations by traditions or culture. I do not accept dictatorships, tyranny or repression. I also believe humanitarian intervention is important, and every country should be helped to develop a model of democracy suitable for their own (not necessarily Western democracy).

My definitions of "liberal" and "human rights" are mainstream. However, as far as I know most of the muslims and the muslim cultures are strongly against the human rights, liberalism and leftist values. Most of the muslims are "right wing" in the way you define them, also every academic muslim I know of. My resistance of islamising the west is a matter of both my green leftist values and what I know of Islam. Some other green leftist are pro islamisation. Their values are quite a same but in my view they don't know enough and what they know is distorted.

I think we have established that they're not 'that' mainstream, but anyway...

Muslims against HR? Are you kidding? Muslims have their own parallel conception of core values that need to be protected, and we could say that especially in the case of moderate and liberal Muslims their ideas of HR overlap greatly with our own. There is also a gender dimension here; women in 'general' are strongly in favour of HR while, especially older generation males are strongly against them. Again we must remember not to talk about Muslims as a homogeneous group.

'they don't know enough and what they know is distorted'.... and you said you're not ethno-centrist? That is the most ethno-centrist, arrogant comment of this discussion.

'us' and 'them'. Who's the one creating the extremes here?

[Lemmy]

You don't want Hadza to move into the urban areas even if they had security and welfare, because then the last hunter-gatherers would be gone.

I would rather see tha Hadza be able to live - if they choose - in their own hunter-gatherer culture as who are you or I to go tell them that living in a city is somehow "better" than how they live now.  That is imperialism, and blatant racism to say that the Hadza do not have an equally a right to have their culture and keep it if they want.

Or minimal immigration is ok, as long as they don't change the existing culture?

So in other words, we should go back and Colonize Africa?

[I Work in Asylum System]

Because you are the one blindly trying to explain to me these asylum seekers are refugees. For the majority of asylum seekers they are not, but blatantly abusing the system.

NO!!! God dammit excuse my French I was NOT SAYING THAT ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE REFUGEES! Please, how can I make you understand my English!

70% of asylum seekers are economic migrants from W Africa, and they get REJECTED. 30% of the asylum seekers are legitimate refugees who's refugee status gets ACCEPTED.

OMG will you never ever learn to read???

Exactly what treaties? None of them is different what eg. Estonia has made. Its just the generous welfare system that assumes people arent' abusing the system which they mostly are if you count entering the country on false pretenses, except for the 2% getting the actual refugee status.

2%? How is 30% to you in any way 2%?? Subsidiary and hum. protection are accepted asylums as well, so the people are considered refugees as well. Please visit UM and Immi to check on the terms if you're confused.

I would rather see tha Hadza be able to live - if they choose - in their own hunter-gatherer culture as who are you to go tell them that living in a city is somehow "better". That is imperialism, and racism to say that the Hadza do not have an equally a right to have their culture and keep it if they want.

Twisting my words again. Who was saying ANYTHING about telling them to move a city? Lemmy, most of them WANT to, they choose to, and they have left already. OMG how you don't even know how to use the term racism.

I'm not the naive ideologist here in this discussion. I base my arguments on facts. You will lose on each and every argument - you can rest assured of that which of us has better knowledge of things. I have never lost a debate to a barber. FARC is one of the five players, ELN and ARC and then the druglords each play a part in the conflict. As do the Colombian and Venezualan governments as well as the USA in its "war against drugs". Not complex?

You keep saying I'm a naive ideologist when you haven't proven my claims unfounded, and you don't seem to know what my ideology is.

I haven't seen much facts from you, mostly empty blabbering.

Just because you can name some of the players of Colombian guerrilla warfare doesn't mean you can compare it with Somalia. I wasn't saying that Colombia isn't complex - I have studied the conflict myself also when living in South America. BUT it is simply ignorant to use Colombia as Somalia's analogy. Back to school, boy.

You said you read my comments, but you haven't. You purposefully twist my words, ignore facts and ridicule me, while not being able to prove anything you say. Learn from some of the other people here how to discuss.Communism... parasites... OMG You're creeping me out. I'm done with you.

[Lemmy]

70% of asylum seekers are economic migrants from W Africa, and they get REJECTED. 30% of the asylum seekers are legitimate refugees who's refugee status gets ACCEPTED.

So why is it then you are defending these people?

2%? How is 30% to you in any way 2%?? Subsidiary and hum. protection are accepted asylums as well, so the people are considered refugees as well. Please visit UM and Immi to check on the terms if you're confused.

The correct number is 2% of REFUGEES. Please stop confusing the terminology yourself.

You purposefully twist my words, ignore facts and ridicule me, while not being able to prove anything you say.

Thats what you do you. You cannot face the facts. You are promoting the destruction of Finland just because you are an idealist. And if I ridicule you its because you are so funny.

[I Work in Asylum System]

So why is it then you are defending these people?

Ok one last time... I haven't been defending the rejected asylum seekers at all, I have been defending ALL THE TIME those who are legitimate. We can talk about the rejected later. I need to go to sleep.

The correct number is 2% of REFUGEES. Please stop confusing the terminology yourself.

No it is not... 30% of the AS are legitimate refugees. Asylum is granted on 3 main categories; refugee status, temporary humanitarian protection, and subsidiary status. These are all refugees. I told you to check the facts. I'll link them to you later if you can't do it yourself (obviously you can't or you would have already).

Thats what you do you. You cannot face the facts. You are promoting the destruction of Finland just because you are an idealist. And if I ridicule you its because you are so funny.

Sigh... I love your argument ad hominems, I don't even know why I bother.
Last time:
Define exactly HOW I am promoting the destruction of Finland?
How am I an idealist?

If you can't argue for your own claims you are the funny one, And goddamn tiring. Now I'm out.

[Lemmy]

Ok one last time... I haven't been defending the rejected asylum seekers at all, I have been defending ALL THE TIME those who are legitimate.

Ah, but my definition of "legitimate" is UNCHR mandated refugees.

Asylum is granted on 3 main categories; refugee status, temporary humanitarian protection, and subsidiary status. These are all refugees.

No they are not, you and other idealists can _claim_ them to be refugees, but only the ones with "refugee status" are refugees for me. The rest are "legally in country" maybe, but not "refugees".

I told you to check the facts.

I told you to do that, I am not interested in debating what multiculturalist propaganda says.

Define exactly HOW I am promoting the destruction of Finland?
How am I an idealist?

You want us to accept all the dregs of the world because of your "humanitarian" stance. You blind your eyes from the truth. The truth is that illegal immigration isn't anything Finland needs as some sort of "need" or "requirement", and multiculturalism as double standards and a divided society is something Finland needs even less. Multiculturalism destroys societies - you promote multiculturalism, therefore you promote the destruction of the Finnish society.

[mikkoellila]

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.

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.

I remember the incident in question. The rapist was *NOT* a white Finnish-born man but a South American immigrant. I remember this because the statue you mentioned is the statue of Aleksis Kivi and this was mentioned in the newspaper article on the incident. Too bad that the one example of a rape committed by a Finnish man that you mentioned was in reality a rape committed by a dark-skinned immigrant from a third world country.

Anyway, I'm not interested in individual cases, I'm interested in statistical probabilities. You should check out crime statistics by nationality. Immigrants are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics, particularly in cases of rape and robbery. And among the immigrants, Muslims and other third world people are obviously more likely to commit crimes than other immigrants.

[Malla]

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. (...) If you think about a happy holiday, I believe you are mistaken. Safe? You go there then!

No thanks.
I would never return, not even for a short holiday, to a dangerous country I have managed to escape from nor, and especially not, send my children back there. Apparently some Somalis do. Why? What is the logic?
I fail to understand the concept of part-time asylum.

Either the country is safer than portrayed in the media OR the people in question are very irresponsible and at least child-care officials should be alerted.     

[Pöllämystynyt]

Because of my limited time I put the most important part first.

I am not "pro Western culture", I am pro every culture (including Western). All the cultures should be spared from replacing and melting so that the world would be rich in cultural diversity that I love.

Aaa! Now I understand! You are what I might say as 'conservative multiculturalists' who are usually also communitarians. That's what you advocate! First of all, you seem to see MC as a value in itself, something to be preserved (cultural conservatism!). Secondly, you are willing to restrict freedom of movement while allowing free movement of capital and goods, to preserve these cultures from mixing. You want to keep travelling Thailand and Cambodia so that you can enjoy the rich diversity of the world - while preventing Thais and Cambodians to emigrate from 'their part of the world' and mixing with us. You don't want Hadza to move into the urban areas even if they had security and welfare, because then the last hunter-gatherers would be gone.

I see! This is finally the parting of our ways; I'm a cosmopolitan multiculturalist, you're an isolationist-to-at-least-some-degree MC. I do not see MC as a value; I see it as an existing fact. My stand is to accomodate MC with the globalizing world - you are an anti-globalization advocate, or am I wrong? You wish to stop the wheels of global migration to preserve the existing cultures. If this is indeed the case, then you are, sorry, part of the (extreme) cultural conservatisve group. But hey.... that doesn't go hand in hand with what you said about not advocating closed borders? I am confused. So ok; tourism is ok, as long as there are no great movements from one country to another? Or minimal immigration is ok, as long as they don't change the existing culture?

I'm confused now.

No, Im not "isolationist", and again, Im not "conservative". I have said nothing to deserve these labels that are against my ideology, that you are trying to shoot on me with automatic fire. I have already explained my political stance quite completely and if you still don't understand it, please talk with me about it privately. I was already asked by an admin not to continue disturbing this thread by talking about the "definitions of my political stance" (that is not the subject of this thread), and I must respect that. 
 
I quote this again.

I see! This is finally the parting of our ways;

It seems that you really, really want to "separate our ways" in ideology by finding a separate category for me. This might be important for you in order to be able to consider my opinions as "proven false" without really to consider them. Can't you really face a person who disagrees with you without giving him/her some politically motivated label that is a negative profanity in your worldview? Don't tell me the labels you have offered are not profanities or that they are "neutral" descriptions because I know quite completely the (red-green) world view and the general rethorics related to it. Could you try to talk with me without labeling me first, about the subject that we should be talking about?

I will reply more when I have better time. Feel free to talk with me privately if you want to discuss about how to label me.

[Koskela Suomesta]

Olen pahoillani etikettirikosta, mutta miksi suomalaiset keskustelevat englanniksi keskenään? halu näyttää että ymmärrämme ja kirjoitamme englantia? julkaistaksemme käsityksiämme kansainvälisesti? tai muuten päteäksemme? käsittääkseni yksikään osallistuja ei ole ulkomaalainen?

Olen vain aina huvittunut, kun työ- tai muu ryhmä jatkaa keskusteluaan keskenään englanniksi kaikkien ulkomaalaisten poistuttua paikalta... 

[Pöllämystynyt]

Olen pahoillani etikettirikosta, mutta miksi suomalaiset keskustelevat englanniksi keskenään? halu näyttää että ymmärrämme ja kirjoitamme englantia? julkaistaksemme käsityksiämme kansainvälisesti? tai muuten päteäksemme? käsittääkseni yksikään osallistuja ei ole ulkomaalainen?

Olen vain aina huvittunut, kun työ- tai muu ryhmä jatkaa keskusteluaan keskenään englanniksi kaikkien ulkomaalaisten poistuttua paikalta...  

En tiedä syytä, mutta on reilua, jos Sennels pystyy lukemaan mitä hänestä kirjoitetaan. Nyt hän voi halutessaan vastatakin. Minua ainakin kiinnostaisi kuulla, mitä hän vastaa näihin väitteisiin.

[Koskela Suomesta]

Go enkuksi kisha ikiwa / wakati Semmels inaonekana. Vinginevyo inafanya hakuna maana ileile grind mambo tena katika Kiingereza, ambayo ni puhkikaluttuja nyingine Kifini minyororo.

[Lemmy]

Olen vain aina huvittunut, kun työ- tai muu ryhmä jatkaa keskusteluaan keskenään englanniksi kaikkien ulkomaalaisten poistuttua paikalta...

Thats what the she wanted, thats what she gets. We had some proposals back in the day wanting "Homma in English". Maybe this gets up to Google so not everyone believes Tarja Halonen in Egypt.

Besides which its good practice - I usually can't get such political bitchslapping done where I usually post.

[Lemmy]

Pitäis ottaa joku puolueeton domari. Tekstiä meinaan on niin maan bergeleesti. Ja mä en usko että mä sain kuin korkeintaan 3 tai 4 argumenttia iskettyä lekalla sisään kun vittuilupiru alkoi heiluttamaan punaisia sillejä.

We should ask Nicolai Sennels as the judge - after all its all about him 

[Koskela Suomesta]

Nah ya, sekarang kebetulan hanya supaya mereka pertama pencari suaka yang kemudian akan baik status pengungsi atau berhak untuk tetap tinggal di negara ini.

Mereka tidak pengungsi segera setelah negara tullessaa, yang didefinisikan dengan baik status kontrak mereka tidak memiliki satu namun dalam situasi yang diberikan. Hanya sekitar 8% dari pendatang menerima status pengungsi. Penerima yang lain jika tidak akan tetap di Irak saja.

Ini bukan retorika, tetapi cukup ikan ketentuan-ketentuan dan perjanjian yang terdapat dalam subjek (yang "mokuttajat" ingin menyarankan sebaliknya, 99% penghambatan penyalahgunaan, meskipun), siapa lagi Anda perlu membuktikan. Go ahead. Silakan.

[Miniluv]

Englanniksi, kiitos.

[Koskela Suomesta]

Miksi? alkuperäinen kirjoittajakin häipyi jo? eikä Semmelsiä ole näkynyt...

[Zngr]

Miksi? alkuperäinen kirjoittajakin häipyi jo? eikä Semmelsiä ole näkynyt...

Oletko ihan varma, että moderaattorin kanssa kannatta alkaa kiistelemään ketjussa käytettävästä kielestä?

btw, google: google translate

[Lemmy]

Ei se ole mun mielipiteestäni kiinni vaan faktoista. Pakolainen on pakolaisstatuksen saanut.

No ne faktat on vaan ja ainoastaan sun sanojas ennekuin todistat ne jollain.

Go play with yourself. "Refugee" means a person fulfilling the criteria laid out in the in article 1A of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The burden of proof is on those claiming to fulfill that criteria. 

[Zngr]

Finnish trolling on this thread will be simply deleted in the future, so if you have an urgent need to type in Finnish, please do it somewhere else.