Vastaus Nicolai Sennelsille: haastattelun kritiikki *English Only!*

[RP]

COmmenting on some points, on assumption that you are still (occasionally) reading:

But there's another point of this issue; integration doesn't happen if the existing minority is a very small minority – the smaller the minorities especially in the case of colored people who stand out – the more difficult for them to integrate; to be accepted by us, or to feel at home themselves. This is why I don't think we should take any less immigrants than what we are doing now, and I believe we could even take some more as well – up to a certain limit of course.

They of course do not stand out physically as much as some other groups, but very few on this board have anything bad to say about the Jews and Muslims that came in to Finland during the Russian period, because those people are well integrated - and they are small in number compared to many of the newer arrivals.

non-integrating people in small numbers cause smaller problems, the same people in larger number cause larger problems.

[RP]

In this context, multiculturalists advocate extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or cultural community values as central.
Wiki.

Equality of citizens irrespective of their ethnic and religious has been an European ideal for long time (and it is well known that at times it has not upheld at all). You do not need to be 'multiculturalist' for that. On the other hand being a Jew, Christian or Atheist is anything but equitable in many of the places we get humanitarian immigrants nowadays - and that is a one very good reason I do want to keep our not their values as central to this country. (If I wanted to live under those values, I would have always the option to emigrate).

I can't tell you how much it pisses me off to blame the victims for the wars. It seems to be symptomatic in this forum, this shortsightedness.

With clan warfare I was referring to Somalia. Yes, they are victims of the war. They are also its perpetrators. Somalia is not suffering under Martian or even USA armed invasion. In 1990 when the first of them came here, I was quite symphatetic. If they had put an effort in living here productive members of this society, or alternatively when things were more peacefull returned home insteads of just making holiday visits I assume I'd still be symphatetic.

but there is also the news of pretty strong economy, industries (and at least at lower levels) pretty well working education system and boring elections (where boring is a good thing, as nobody is surprised that the elections actually take place and people are not killed because of them).

...as much as there are similar news (ed. System, industries, elections) from e.g. African countries, if you would care to read them. I really don't see your point here. :0

Really... I understand there over 60 countries in Africa. Pick ten as an example for good governance, eduacational system and economy.

And as it happens, Finns seem to blame all the problems on immigrants

If that is so, then our governemnt policies are even stranger... Care to give example of Finns (preferably well known complete loonies) that think all our problems are caused by immigrants?

Show the statistics, please.

Hmph, I was sure I had put the link there. :/ I even had a link with the numbers 12 000-20 000 (Japan having the largest number, other countries being USA, Mexico, Italy, Hongkong, etc. other developed countries).

That would be a mathemathical impossibility. For Japan, one of the countries with the lowest number of murder per capita in the world, even if all the homicides would be caused by domestic violance you numbers would be off by more than a factor of ten. From the other end Hong Kong has population of 7 million, so even 12 000 would probably make murder the leading cause of death there. I asure you, it is not. (and we are accused of demonizing foreign countries we do not understand?).

"Studies by the Surgeon General's office reveal that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44, more common than automobile accidents, muggings, and cancer deaths combined.

So now you are equating non lethal violence with murder?

According to a UNIFEM report on violence against women in Afghanistan, out of 1,327 incidents of violence against women collected between January 2003 and June 2005, 36 women had been killed — in 16 cases (44.4 percent) by their intimate partners "
http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/violence_against_women/facts_figures.php

- but thanks for pointing out that honor is not the only reason why wifes in Afganistan are killed by their families (and by the way, last time I checked, Brazil and Mexico were not classified as developed countries)

== > My point being; beatings, killings etc. of women are and have been common for ages also in Western countries, and in majority of the cases are done by an intimate partner. Why do you think men in West beat up women, hutn down their exes and kill them? It is just another form of honor or pride.

A) there is the matter of scale, B) here man killing his (ex)wife is considered to be scumbag by the society (often he kills himself too) and has no support from his family. In some other cultures, if the father fails to kill "missbehaving" daugheter, brother will help to finish the job. There is no equivalent thing in our society (excluding some immigrant groups)

Sadly, you seem to be incapable of understanding humanitarian migration from the perspective of moral and legal responsibility, and are only seeking to benefit yourself.

I have slowly got pissed of with "humanitarians" who seem to feel no moral responsibility confirm to the laws of this country or try to support themselves and their familys with their own work - and politicians and officials who seem to have no interest to compel them to do so (or kick them out at the first possibility as an alternative). Humanitarian immigration, when happens in a way that is causing a permanent burden to recieving country, is deffinietely not a cost effective way to ease the hardships in this world.

[Julmuri]

Apologies for delay, I am frankly losing my interest in participating in this conversation as it keeps on going in circles, but I should keep my promise and comment:

In your links I find a lot of political approach to the issue and very little legally binding facts, one link didnt work at all. So, as I was saying there is no legal obligation to not to deport somebody just because his/her country may be in a state of war. Of course there can be other aspects of war which make asylum seekers application acceptable.

There are not any universally recognised international organ which forbids us deport people back to Somalia or Afganistan. I clearly see why you left Iraq out of your list.

I didn't leave Iraq from the list 'on purpose'. You can read on Iraq for example here:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/11/26/stuck-revolving-door-0

Ok. My bad. I thought you left it out from your list because for example Sweden deports people back to Iraq. So the case of Iraq kind of proves that there arent any universally recognised international organ who decides which countries fall under non-refoulement principole.


You wrote about UNGA. I have to disappoint you. UNGA can give only recommendations not legally binding resolutions. Only SC chapter 7 resolutions are legally binding. And we all klnow that arab oil basically rules UNGA and UNCHR. So it is a bit of paradox that worlds worst human rights violators sits there and then we shoiuld do what they say. The same goes to HRW which went to fundraising tour in Saudi-Arabia. Real champions of human rights!

If you are referring to enforcements, you should know that in international law no such things as enforcement tools in national law exist. It does not nevertheless make international law useless or without any authority,

UNSC Chapter VII resolutions are legally binding (and international commynity enforces them) but I dont see any UNSC C7 resolutions that demand us to change our country to a muslim state.



Finland has also deported people back to Somalia. Somaliland to be accurate.

Until now European states have interpretated international law to asylum seekers favor but it is changing. "Border states" like Greece, Italy etc.  simply dont care anymore and when the flow of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers grows also elsewhere  the same trend will follow.

Nation states in european context are coming back. People have now seen the other side of multiculturalism and immigration. Taxpayers are starting to see that immigrants costs far more than they contribute. We have no obligation to work as social welfare office to the whole world.

So my original point still stands. It is only up to us which kind hardships we accept as a rigth to non-refoulement or to refugee status.