Here are some additional updates on the legal case being mounted against the Finnish blogger Mikko Ellilä.
When you read through the charges against Mr. Ellilä, you will encounter in his quoted writings statements about race and intelligence. I want to make my personal opinion clear: I do not credit any of the theories that assert a genetically-based racial component to intelligence.
Unfortunately, clinical scientific investigation into the subject of race and intelligence was brought to a screeching halt back in the late 1960s and early 1970s as the new ideology of political correctness settled into the academic institutions of the West. Asking the question “Is there a racial component to human intelligence?” became impossible. No professor could receive funding, publish his writings easily, or maintain his professional reputation if he attempted to venture into these stormy waters. The entire topic was simply shut down.
If political ideology were no constraint, a thorough scientific examination of the issue would almost certainly show that there is no persistent measurable correlation between race and intelligence among human beings. Thomas Sowell has examined the topic at length, and his conclusions are convincing. But until scientists are able to engage in free and open inquiry on the subject, it will continue to be pushed into the fringes and keep company with cranks, charlatans, and outright Nazis.
In any case, it is an outrage against the principles of free speech that Mikko Ellilä should be subject to a police inquiry based solely upon the statement of his opinions.
Lot, who blogs at Laiva on täynnä has a report on the accusations that were mounted against Mr. Ellilä:
Here’s quick-and-dirty translation of accusations that were sent by Ombudsman for Minorities Mikko Puumalainen to Finnish police.
Preliminary investigation, ethnic agitation
1. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
The duties of Ombudsman include prevention of ethnic discrimination, promotion of good ethnic relations, advancing the status and legal protection of ethnic minorities and foreigners in society as well as supervising compliance with the prohibition of ethnic discrimination (Law regarding Ombudsman for Minorities and National Discrimination Tribunal 1 §, 660/2001).
2. Preliminary investigation
We thereby request National Bureau of Investigation to investigate whether an article “Society consists of People” found from http://mikkoellila.thinkertothinker.com fulfills the characteristics of a crime named Ethnic agitation. In addition, we ask you to initiate actions so that the article in consideration can be removed from the internet. Parts of the article attached here.
3. General issues regarding criminal law, chapter 11, 8 §
Freedom of expression has been secured by Finnish constitution (731/1999) 12 §. Freedom of expression consists of – according to the law in question — right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone.
Penal Code of Finland, (39/1889) chapter 11, 8 § criminalizes Ethnic agitation. The chapter in question restricts the freedom of speech. It is not possible to justify dissemination or distribution of racist statements or other information by appealing to freedom of speech. Penal Code chapter 11, 8§ criminalizes dissemination of statements that where a certain race, a national, ethnic or religious group or a comparable group is threatened, defamed or insulted. It is customary to classify the characteristics of the chapter in the following manner.
Statement or other information. A statement or other information mentioned in the chapter can be given by verbally, in writing, by illustration or by gestures. It is essential that the statement or other information include threats, defamation or insults described by the penal code chapter.
Dissemination or distribution. In order for the characteristics (of the chapter) to be realized, the target of the statement must be an open group of people. According to the legal praxis, dissemination or distribution described by the chapter can be done via Internet.
Threatening, defamation or insulting. Threatening means e.g. threat by violence or threat by theft. The characteristics of defamation and insulting are comparable to offence against personal reputation (described in penal code Chapter 24 section 9). Defamation is e.g. spreading false information about ethnic groups being guilty of crimes or similar actions. Insults may contain truthful statements that have a purpose of offending. It is typical that insulting statements are not truthful. If this is the case, the lack of truth can be used as evidence of intentionality and it can emphasize the “intent for agitation”. Misleading statements, for example grossly exaggerating, can be considered as Defamation.
National, racial, ethnic or other population group. The list is not conclusive, because it includes the term “other population group”. Requirement for intent. The characteristics of the crime are fulfilled even if the agitation pursued by the suspect is successful or not. If the suspect has considered it possible for the agitation to succeed or he/she has had an indifferent attitude towards the agitation.
– – – – – – – – – –
4. Arguments for preliminary investigation
Article states defaming statements of different groups as facts. Text states as a so-called fact that: “Africans think that robberies, rapes, nepotism, corruption, clan wars, superstition and murders committed on a spur on moment are normal way of things. If Africans form a majority group in some country outside Africa, this country is transformed into Africa.” Text also states racist and defamatory statements and racist thoughts in a textbook-style. Certain groups are also threatened.
Article provides wrongful statements as facts and conclusions are made using these wrongful statements. Textbook-style is emphasised by using pictures. Message of the article is that whites are more intelligent than blacks. For instance, it is stated, “a population consisting of 500 million white people is more intelligent than population consisting of 500 million whites plus 100 million blacks”.
Writer is trying to state his statements so that they would look like scientific facts. For instance, writer refers to causality. An example: “Bringing Negroes to Europe is bound to lower the average intelligence level because Negroes have a lower median-IQ than whites. There is a positive correlation between intelligence and the standard of living.” In the concluding phase, the article describes blacks as dangerous, because – according to the writer – they often commit crimes and they are being parasitic, because – also according to the writer – they are unemployed and are “being parasites living off with the money of the European taxpayers.” Conclusion according to the writer: “When more Negroes are brought to Europe, criminal activity shall rise”. Writer provides his solution to the problem in the last sentence: “if all those non-whites who currently live in Europe would move back to their originating countries, crime would be reduced by tens of percentages.”
Statements provided in the article are defamatory and they also defame certain groups. Statements are greatly exaggerating, whole groups are described as stupid, criminal – meaning dangerous – and parasitic. It is obvious, that writer wants to induce the reader with the same kind of loathing and contempt against a certain group that he himself feels (compare to Mika Illman: Hate against a human group, publication of a Finnish Bar Association, A-class N:o 262, s. 267-8).
Text compares certain ethnic groups to animals. According to Illman (page 269), statements like this belong to the core of penal code, chapter 11 8 § and without doubt fulfill the characteristics of a crime. This is a question about despising the humanity of certain groups and also about describing certain groups being of lesser value. Illman (page 269) has made a remark that e.g. describing refugees as parasites fulfills the characteristics of a crime described in penal code, chapter 11 8 §.
It is also necessary to take into consideration that text constantly introduces the word “Negro”. According to legal praxis, referring to individuals using this word is considered as an offence against personal reputation. Use of this word demonstrates that there is intent to defame and it also aggravates the statements made.
It is the viewpoint of the Ombudsman – while observing all issues as a whole- that disseminating this article clearly fulfills the characteristics described in penal code, chapter 11 8 §.
5. Receiving information about preliminary investigation
We thereby request to determinate the approximate length of the preliminary investigation. Also, when the time is due, we request for information about the results of the preliminary investigation.
Ombudsman for Minorities MikkPuumalainen
Senior inspector Yrsa Korkman
The Ombudsman for minorities is a government official, whose job description is given here:
“The Ombudsman for Minorities is an authority with the basic task of advancing the status and legal protection of ethnic minorities and foreigners as well as equality and non-discrimination and good ethnic relations in Finland.
The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman only covers the supervision of ethnic discrimination: it does not cover discrimination based merely on language, sexual orientation, ideology or disability. Preventing discrimination on these grounds still belongs to other authorities, mainly the highest supervisors of legality and, in working life, to occupational safety and health authorities.
The current Ombudsman for Minorities is Mr Mikko Puumalainen, LLLic. Administratively, the Office of the Ombudsman for Minorities works in connection with the Ministry of Labour, but the Ombudsman is an independent authority. The Office employs four senior officers and a secretary.
The task of the Ombudsman for Minorities is to:
- promote good ethnic relations;
- advance the status and legal protection of ethnic minorities and foreigners in society;
- monitor the realisation of equality;
- supervise compliance with the prohibition of ethnic discrimination;
- provide information and reports.
The Ombudsman’s duties also include the tasks formerly assigned to the Ombudsman for Foreigners. A further task is the general safeguarding of the status and rights of foreigners.
The primary means used by the Ombudsman include recommendations, instructions and advice. The Ombudsman can also take initiatives related to the status of different ethnic groups or foreigners or social injustice. The Ombudsman enjoys an extensive right to access information.
Whenever necessary – although very exceptionally – the Ombudsman may also provide more extensive assistance to a person subjected to ethnic discrimination if the case is of great consequence. In most cases, however, legal assistance is only provided in the form of legal advice.
The new Non-Discrimination Act strengthens the Ombudsman’s mandate in addressing ethnic discrimination.
The Ombudsman for Minorities:
- provides guidance and advice to those contacting the office on issues related to ethnicity and being a foreigner in Finland;
- acts and encourages others to act on ethnic discrimination and the legal protection of foreigners;
- promotes the status of ethnic minorities and foreigners and good ethnic relations;
- provides information and training about ethnicity and the status of foreigners;
- seeks to make attitudes towards ethnic minorities and immigrants more positive;
- influences legislation and reports through statements and opinions;
- influences topical issues through methods including comments and initiatives;
- participates in public discussion through channels including granting interviews.
The Ombudsman’s task involves the principle of cooperation on multiple levels. Many aspects of equal treatment irrespective of a person’s origin are best achieved through cooperation between the various parties – not just the authorities.”
Yorkshire Miner, a frequent commenter here at Gates of Vienna, points out that the Finns are simply following the example (and before long, the mandates) of the European Union itself:
This will only get worse especially here in the Big Brother EU lands. Just over two weeks ago the Council of Europe issued a proposal for new laws to combat racism and xenophobia. If these proposals ever become law, it will be the end of a free Europe. These new laws will give the EU the right to decide what is racist or xenophobic. It gives the EU the right to instigate proceedings against any individual or organization, “Legal Person” being the proffered jargon. This can happen even if no complaint has been made. The punishments are also draconian, 1 to 3 years in prison; they have even some extra ones to dissuade you from doing the same again when you come out of prison and have paid your so-called debt to society. Read and weep:
Sanctions for legal persons
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 5(1) is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include criminal or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions, such as: (a) exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid; (b) temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities; (c) placing under judicial supervision; (d) a judicial winding-up order. 2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that a legal person held liable pursuant to Article 5(2) is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions or measures.
If you think you will be able to criticize by posting your comments on a server outside the EU, think again; they have even thought of a way around that. it is not only where the server is situated, it is where the offense is committed. It could also lead to the ridiculous situation where an American Blogger posted a not too complimentary comment on a Blog on a European server being arrested when he steps off the plane in Europe. Once again, read and weep:
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction with regard to the conduct referred to in Articles 1 and 2 where the conduct has been committed: (a) in whole or in part within its territory; or (b) by one of its nationals; or (c) for the benefit of a legal person that has its head office in the territory of that Member State. 2. When establishing jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 1(a), each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that its jurisdiction extends to cases where the conduct is committed through an information system and: (a) the offender commits the conduct when physically present in its territory, whether or not the conduct involves material hosted on an information system in its territory; (b) the conduct involves material hosted on an information system in its territory, whether or not the offender commits the conduct when physically present in its territory. […] 4. A Member State may decide not to apply, or to apply only in specific cases or circumstances, the jurisdiction rule set out in paragraphs 1(b) and (c).
…So all bloggers be careful, and don’t call the EU from now on a wicked vicious organization run by baboons. You will most likely get off calling them wicked and vicious but they will certainly put you away for being racist and xenophobic towards baboons.
Earlier posts on this topic: