Finnish discussion on immigration is "splintered"

[Eldritch]

Finnish discussion on immigration is splintered

Opinions vary between matter-of-fact arguments and malicious smearing

http://www.hs.fi/kuvat/iso_webkuva/1135260600428.jpeg

In the Finnish experience, criticism against immigration may mean anything between amendment of legislation and racist bigotry on the Internet.

At the beginning of the millennium, discussions on immigration were still sporadic debates on the Internet.

Today, debate on the issue has splintered. The topic is discussed within the major political parties as well as in online chat rooms.

The issue is debated even in Parliament, while many parties have defined their stances in competition with each other. Some parties have even attempted to revamp their programmes entirely.

The issue is likely to be a hot potato in next year’s parliamentary elections to be held in April.

Other parties are worried about the True Finns (http://www.perussuomalaiset.fi/), while the party’s success in recent polls has been explained by their overt anti-immigration stance.

On online chat forums many speakers have reported that they are critical towards immigration, but the term is flexible, and the statements vary between suggestions to amend legislation and openly racist nonsense.

Apart from the True Finns, the best known Finnish immigration-critical group is the popular online chat room Hommaforum (http://cms.hommaforum.org/).

One of the less known groups is Suomen Sisu (http://www.suomensisu.fi/cms/), a Finnish nationalistic association that according to its own declarations stands against unlimited immigration and seeks to promote patriotism and nationalism.

Another immigration-critical group is Muutos 2011 (http://muutos2011.fi/) (”Change 2011”), a Finnish political party founded in 2009.

The party's name refers to the 2011 Finnish parliamentary election, the first election the party is going to take part in.

Muutos 2011 wants to rationalize immigration policy, and have more rigorous sentences handed down for violent and sexual crimes. The party is opposed to racism.

In spite of the apparently splintered nature of the field, the same names tend to pop up in various groups.

A number of variables have been sought out in order to analyse the playing field of immigration-critical groups and Internet chat forums.

These variables are based on the statements of the immigration-critical groups, the monitoring of online chat forums, and on the views of immigration activists interviewed by Helsingin Sanomat Helsinskaja Pravda.

The first variable measures how significant a theme the immigration issue is for the group. In other words, whether the group is a general party or whether it is a movement that is devoted to just the one cause.

The second variable attempts to assess if the group is leader-oriented. In other words, to what extent does the group act on the terms set by a certain leading figure.

When it comes to the True Finns, immigration issues have increased the popularity of the party, but party leader Timo Soini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timo_Soini) himself is more interested in criticism against the European Union and stirring resentment for the pampered haves in society, a theme that the party has inherited from its predecessor, the Finnish Rural Party (Suomen Maaseudun Puolue, SMP).

Hommaforum was founded by the supporters of Helsinki City Councillor Jussi Halla-aho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho) (True Finns/Unaffiliated) to whose blog they used to send their opinions.

Even though the issues on the forum vary a lot, all themes originate from immigration or are eventually linked with immigration.

Halla-aho himself does not participate in discussion much, but references to his articles are made constantly.

Two of the major political parties, the National Coalition Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoomus) and the Social Democratic Party, have also immigration-critical members.

However, both parties have joined the debate rather late - with the exception of Ben Zyskowicz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Zyskowicz), whose statements on the issue have been heard in Parliament for a long time.

Link. (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Finnish+discussion+on+immigration+is+splintered/1135260614114)

Translation: OMG MAKE IT STOP OMG MAKE IT STOP can't we shut down the internet or something ?!? :D

[Osweo]

This serious (and permanent) division created in a country by immigration is a good bloody reason never to start it in the first place. There's always going to be some who hate this phenomenon, and refuse to go along with the wet dream of the multikult idealists. It's impossible to convert everyone, so in the end, all that's achieved is permanent strife, even WITHOUT taking into account the immigrants themselves.

Perhaps this is a good indication of why it was sponsored in the first place, by those with an interest to sow ********* :mad:

[The Ripper]

I'm sickened by the value-bias inherent in every article contributing to this meta-debate on immigration.

Because my anti-immigration stance mainly rests on the idea that Finland is the land of the Finns and we would do well to keep it that way, I'm a racist who cannot be taken seriously. But if someone thinks that Finland should belong to everyone, they're lauded for their progressiveness. :mad:

FU, YLE, HS and the rest.

[Eldritch]

And the whole public debate on the issue of immigration and multiculturalism is, as Halla-aho himself put it, asymmetrical: "racists" are actually discussing the issues, while the enlightened progressives can only discuss what can be said, how, and by whom. :rolleyes:

[The Ripper]

And the whole public debate on the issue of immigration and multiculturalism is, as Halla-aho himself put it, asymmetrical: "racists" are actually discussing the issues, while the enlightened progressives can only discuss what can be said, how, and by whom. :rolleyes:

Racists are discussing it in the wrong manner, of course, because they question the very premises of our immigration policy. The establishment would rather be in a post-debate mode, like in Sweden, where the question of immigration is not about whether or not have massive immigration, but rather about how massive is massive enough and what kind of integration is the best integration, etc. They don't want to talk about whether they actually should have massive immigration at all, its a given.