Daily Thoughts

[Zzzptm]

Thanks, Thel!

And, yes, hoping things go well is one big reason I'm leaving my current role, where things are anything but sane and healthy.

[Typhon]

I was pretty shocked to see that freedom of speech or expressing your opinion, can get you arrested in Finland. 

https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/24/paivi-rasanen-finland-s-ex-interior-minister-goes-on-trial-for-anti-lgbt-hate-speech

[Charger]

I was pretty shocked to see that freedom of speech or expressing your opinion, can get you arrested in Finland. 

https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/24/paivi-rasanen-finland-s-ex-interior-minister-goes-on-trial-for-anti-lgbt-hate-speech

Not arrested....but trialled... And yes it is rather horrid. She is a deeply religious person and was a leader of the christian party here as well for many years. And she has been taking a stand on religious issues here.

I don't really agree with her and she can be a bit of a religious nutter but this is still a fucking joke all in all though. But freedom of speech has been in jeopardy here for a while now...We can't even identify criminal suspects by race anymore.

[Zzzptm]

Depends on the opinion, I suppose.

It's one thing to say that one doesn't agree with a way of life, but I think it crosses a line to define others in a way that dehumanizes them and which normalizes irrational prejudice and violence, be it physical or verbal or emotional. In a sense, the persons running afoul of the Finnish law are running afoul of their own purported moral code as Christian practitioners. If they had used their belief system as a personal guide instead of a judgmental yardstick, they would not be in trouble with regards to this statute. Jesus' comments about judging not, casting the beam from one's own eye before tending to the speck in another's, go thy way and sin no more, and so on all clearly proscribe going down the path they went. That there is a worldly law to prohibit such should have been the least of their concerns, in view of their belief system.

But, the deed is done. They are imperfect and inconsistent and hopefully trying to get better. As it is, they face a legal precedent that exists in many European nations. Given the experience of multiple governments that demonized minority groups for political gain to the point where said minorities found themselves being arrested because of their minority status and then incarcerated and/or worked to death and/or tortured to death and/or just flat-out murdered, laws were made so that a culture of violence and minority victimization would not be normalized.

And before everyone thinks of Nazis and nobody else, the convulsions of the Second World War and its aftermath also saw huge numbers of ethnic Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Slovaks, and Hungarians forcibly evicted and driven across national borders - with acts of mass murder and other atrocities to accompany the ethnic cleansing. Micro-nationalities across Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe, were attacked and similarly driven out by majority populations. Jews returning to Poland often found that country to be just as murderous in its attitudes as were the Germans - they were driven out a second time because of majority-friendly/minority-hostile rule.

In light of the millions and millions of people made to suffer as a result of those events, laws were codified with the intent to put an end to normalizing violence. It can be argued that the laws assess fines for non-physical damage. While such damages are difficult to estimate and fully account for, the damages do exist. In a sense, speech like that is verbal littering, or even verbal vandalism.

But even absent a religious or secular code of ethics, there's the idea that just because I can say whatever I want to, doesn't mean that I should. Some years ago, there was a bit of a flap about a comedian telling a rape joke. I really enjoyed another comedian's response:

I've done so many shows to so many people that I know I've performed for rape survivors and rapists alike. It's a statistical probability. To think that I've caused a survivor to relive that crime to any extent, and to think that there's a possibility I may have made a rapist feel a little less guilty -- that really bothers me.

Substitute "person who physically attacks homosexuals" for rapist and "survivor of anti-gay violence" for rape survivor, you have the same thing.

Said comedian even made a flow chart, which I find quite handy:

[Typhon]

I don't know precisely everything that woman has said, but I do know the Christian Bible condemns homosexuality as an abomination.  So if that's all she is reiterating, then I don't think that should be against the law to say it.  Keep in mind, this is coming from a guy who believes all this religious stuff is a bunch of nonsense.  But freedom of speech takes priority.

Personally, I think 2 consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they want to do in private.  But I do think homosexuality is an abnormal behavior.  And I should have the right to say that, even in Finland.

[Zzzptm]

So, in the Bible, while passages can be read that identify homosexual relations as a no-no - and I do read some of them that way, myself - there's nothing in them about homosexuals being mentally afflicted (something the Finnish politician was asserting) or deserving second-class treatment. Granted, it's a matter of interpretation, but it's by no means a monolithic one that Christians in general identify with. As for nature, homosexual intercourse happens all the time in a plethora of species. Homosexual necrophilia in geese was the topic of one paper I've seen that broached the subject of animal sexual behavior. So it's not abnormal in that context. Societies have defined whether or not to accept it and on what terms it was acceptable. The Romans and Greeks both practiced accepted homosexual relations, but with different social structures attached to the relationships.

One the note of freedom of speech, that concept is primarily about being able to criticize the government and those who hold power, to hold them to account. For other areas, there are plenty of restrictions on speech that can result in fines or involuntary detention. For example, on my radio shows, the FCC has not budged from its ban of seven words. If I say them, there's a fine. If I fail to announce the station ID at the top of the hour, there's a fine. Since the station I work at is a 503(c) charity, I can't make any statements of political issue or candidate support, or we lose our status. I can mention politicians, but not in the context of advocating who to vote for or against. There are shows on the station that advocate support for various issues, but they cannot identify them with a politician or party, or we lose our status.

There's no hardcore pornography on freeway billboards, so we know that there are restrictions on speech. Not to equate the Finnish case with such a thing, but it's to underline the idea that there are limits on speech, even if we're free to express a multitude of ideas.

Ultimately, statements such as the Finnish politician made have incited acts of violence against the targets of the statements. In Hungary after WW2, both the Communists and their political opponents accused Jews of being aligned with their opponents. The result of those comments was a wave of attacks on Hungary's surviving and returning Jewish population. In Poland after WW2, politicians made statements that identified Ukrainians as undesirables. The predictable result was that Polish people, police, and soldiers began attacking Ukrainian communities. In France after WW2, it was popularly insinuated that women who had had intercourse with German soldiers were objects of national shame - those women were frequently brought out, stripped naked, shaved bald, and smeared with blood or excrement, even if there was no evidence of their having had sex with Germans. Meanwhile, business owners and shopkeepers that did business with German occupiers were not ostracized and their financial intercourse with the occupiers was ignored. Likewise, police that had collaborated with the Nazis were also kept on without penalty. There were investigations and prosecutions of the most egregious of collaborators, but by and large, it was the women who paid the highest cost, and the acts of speech condemning them, whether or not they had done what they were accused of, led to the violence against them.

If we don't want to normalize acts of violence against homosexuals, then we have to recognize statements such as this for what they are. There are ways to disapprove of a person's choices without using language that dehumanizes or that casts them as the "other". Ask yourself, would you want to make a statement that encouraged someone else to take a violent action? While the answer to that is a personal choice, a government choosing to protect a population from discriminatory violence would take it upon itself to prohibit statements that would lead to breaches of the peace.

[Charger]

She did NOT at any point call out for violence against homosexuals. So let's not go there. Not the point here at all.

Also this is just as much about the freedom of religion as it is about freedom of speech.

One of the corner stones of the bible is the relationship between a man and a woman...and everything else is considered deviant...that's the basis of it and that was the basis of what she was saying as well.

She is basically prosecuted for her religious beliefs...and that would never be allowed if she was lets say Islamic...but a white christian is always free game...but that's the nature of the world we're living in now...

[Zzzptm]

True, she did not call out directly for violence. All the same, statements like this are taken as motivation for violent acts. When I fire a weapon, I'm responsible for every round that goes downrange. I believe I have the same responsibility with my speech. It's very much part of the point and where we have to go. "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" did not directly call for violence, but the story goes that it did lead to a murder of that troublesome priest. In the US south, comments that a Black person "didn't know his place" would lead to a lynching of that person. Criminal groups frequently use euphemisms for criminal activities so they can claim to be having an innocuous discussion when, in fact, they are using coded language to carry on with their illegal activities. Even if we are all in on what the code means, they still have the appearance of propriety.

And we know from sad experience that public comments that marginalize groups of people do lead to acts of violence, whether or not the comments themselves advocate an act of violence. I'm at a loss trying to find a comment from Hitler that directly called for violence against Jews, but ample evidence of his comments that marginalized them. Even his 1939 statement that a second world war would result in the destruction of the Jewish population did not connect his party or Germans in general directly with that destruction. So, in spite of a direct public call to violence, the comments of Hitler, Nazis, and other Jew-haters in Germany led to a series of violent acts collectively known as The Holocaust. The idea of "never again" would lead one to ask about the wisdom of permitting such speech to fuel intolerance towards any group, not just Jews.

While I read the Bible and come away with an idea that only a marital relationship between a man and a woman is an appropriate forum for the expression of sexual activity, I don't consider homosexuals to fit the terms Päivi Räsänen used. Homosexuality is not a mental or physical disorder. It's a difference, no more, no less. Regardless, there's nothing in her religious beliefs that requires that she publicly express intolerant views. The freedom to believe is not equal to the freedom to proselytize. It's possible to express a difference of views on a subject without resort to calling the other party disordered or dysfunctional.

[Typhon]

Allowing people who actually commit violence the excuse that they were incited to do so, is wrong.  The person who acts violent is 100% responsible for their actions, not 90% responsible leaving 10% responsibility on someone else who stated an opinion, no matter how ridiculous that opinion might be.

She is basically prosecuted for her religious beliefs...and that would never be allowed if she was lets say Islamic...but a white christian is always free game...but that's the nature of the world we're living in now...

Agreed.  It states in the Koran that women are worth half that of a man.  I doubt that any muslim preaching that nonsense gets trialed like this woman did.

[Zzzptm]

To be sure, I'm not absolving the doer of the violence because of another's incitement. Both share in the guilt, and not as a part of the whole, just as if two people are involved in a crime they don't split the sentence of one person. Each is tried, convicted, and sentenced accordingly as an individual involved in the action. So I do agree that allowing an excuse for incitement is wrong. It's also just as wrong to absolve an inciter simply because they did not do the deed.

As for the Koran misquote, well, it's a misquote.

The relevant passage is: "And procure two witnesses from among your men; and if two men be not available, then one man and two women, of such as you like as witnesses, so that if either of the two women should be in danger of forgetting, the other may refresh her memory." The text previous to the quote stipulates that this law of witnesses applies to financial matters, so it's narrow in its focus. Only one woman is required to testify, not both. In that sense, the law of two witnesses, regardless of gender, still applies.

Many sections of the Ahadith were dictated by Mohammed's wife. They are considered equally valid as other sections of that explicatory document.

Given the patriarchal nature of society, providing for an assistant to a woman witness was seen as a way of shoring up the testimony of the one woman so that it had equal standing with that of a man's. The assistant is not required to have been a witness, but can essentially rely on hearsay to corroborate the story being given by the primary witness. Again, this is only in financial issues, a subset of civil cases. In other civil cases and criminal cases, a woman's testimony was equal to a man's.

So, should someone teach that a woman is worth half a man, yes, that person is teaching nonsense.

[Zzzptm]

And as for the argument that Muslims in Finland get a free pass, that seems to be a misconception, as the debate over building a Mosque in Helsinki was subjected to debate, and it was not immediately granted the same status as a Christian church. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-47576-5_2

The debate involved more issues that a straight up or down vote, but it would seem that the CD party, of which Päivi Räsänen is a member, were generally opposed to the project. So I'd say it's disingenuous to deny religious freedom for one faith and then turn around and demand it for one's own. That's why religious freedoms fall apart in some countries, one faith is either sponsored above others or the various faiths fail to form a unified interfaith movement to address topics of religious freedom. One could even extend that Päivi Räsänen is a victim of her own party's creation of a political climate hostile to faith. That they did not intend for the hostility to extend to their own faith does not absolve them from having contributed to the climate in the first place.

But I still hold that that's a side issue. There's nothing in the law that prohibits one from believing that homosexuality is a practice one should not engage in and there is nothing in the law that prohibits one from teaching such a principle to co-religionists or even stating publicly that one does not hold the view that homosexual practices are permissible within one's faith. There are many practicing churches in Finland with that view, whose views are publicly stated in written materials available in print and online, and they are not facing legal action for the expression of those views.

Behaving as if one's freedom of expression and/or religion are under attack because of poorly-crafted public statement is not a worthy defense, in my view. The cause of religious freedom is best served without this being a test case for consideration. Räsänen was in the wrong to say what she said in the manner which she said it. Her own political party, if truly serious about religious freedom and not using it as a convenient fig leaf for this occasion, would do well to be involved in existing interfaith efforts to preserve religious freedoms, both nationally and internationally.

Looking further at religious freedom in Finland, I read over this: https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/finland/

Of note is how members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and Finnish Orthodox churches pay a church tax along with their income tax. That means those two religions enjoy a degree of state-sponsored favor that others do not share in. Students are also required to take Lutheran religious classes in school, unless 3 or more of a particular faith are present at the school, or if the student's parents elect for their child to take ethics courses in lieu of the religious classes.

Also of note is that MP's speech while in session is not subject to prosecution, only censure from the parliamentary governing body. So had Räsänen made these comments while in session, she would not face charges, only potential censure.

There was a case of Holocaust denial from an SDP politician, but that person resigned from the party and no criminal investigation resulted. I don't consider that a victory for freedom of speech, but more an indicator that persons expressing hostile views, regardless of who spoke them or who the target was, are not uniformly prosecuted. The above-linked article also mentions Räsänen's case and the 1995 law she is considered to have violated.

Going further into the article discussed hate crime prosecutions against those who targeted Muslims: and of those, over 80% were themselves Muslims of a different sect. So, no, Muslims do not get a free pass to say/do/publish as they please. The law applies to them, as well.

[Typhon]

Where the hell did I say muslims have gotten a free pass in Finland?   

[Zzzptm]

Where the hell did I say muslims have gotten a free pass in Finland?   

You didn't.

[Typhon]

Concerning the Koran, here's what it actually says about a woman's worth to a man's, and the proof that the Koran is wrong.

[Zzzptm]

Man, I'm feeling too good right now to mess with that nonsense. Ya gotta let go the hate, that's how I want to live my life.