Mikko Ellilä revisited [Second Update]
Back on the third day of this blog (when I had virtually no readers) I wrote about Mikko Ellilä, a Finnish blogger who was being accused with "ethnic agitation" for controversial remarks on his site, some of which were simply quoting the official Finnish crime statistics. Amazingly, the man himself dropped in and left one of my first comments.
Well, via Gates of Vienna, there's an update. A prosecutor actually brought the case to trial, and he was found guilty and sentenced to pay fine of 360 Euros ($561). His deactivated blog can be seen here.
I found part of this statement by the prosecutor, Mika Illman, to be very disturbing:This case is not about freedom of opinion. Mr Ellilä is free to hold any opinions that he wishes. However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits abusing these rights. Freedom of speech may not be misused.
How generous - he's promising freedom of opinion. I guess freedom of speech just doesn't cut it any more. But since Finns have this "freedom of opinion", they can think whatever non-politically correct thoughts they want, as long as they don't express them. In other words, Mr. Illman will not prosecute people just for their thoughts. That's certainly a relief...
Just for the record, I support any/all free speech for adult people, the only exception would be organizing or directly inciting others to commit a violent crime, such as calling for a lynching or jihad. In such extremely rare cases, the safety of the people may override the need to allow opinions to be heard. But great caution should be exercised even here.
I'm a little disappointed with the judge in this case. I really believed that Mikko would be found not guilty, and his rights restored. He could still appeal, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights, if he wished. But its unlikely he would pursue expensive appeals over such a relatively smalll sum.
Note: The blogger Lionheart, has turned himself in and faces a similar predicament in London. I wrote about him previously here.
UPDATE 02/04/2008 07:11:00: Some grammatical fixes. I shouldn't write on this site when I am sleepy...
UPDATE 03/04/2008 07:01:00: Mikko Ellilä responds in the comments. He is going to appeal this decision! I wish him the best of luck. 
Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed 
9 comments:
Plenty to talk about here. Since I'm sure you've spent your time in Europe, I'll dispense with the history lesson.
First of all, Finland is exhibiting all signs of being good little commies and condemning anything other than European groupthink. I find it telling that this trial would go to court in a country that is so xenophobic that they don't allow immigration. When I lived in Sweden, I think there were about 4 documented people of 'color' living in a country of about four million.
Second, Finnish have been plucked of almost all of thier mental wealth due to Swedish conscription. No history lesson needed to explain what happens when you lose almost all of a village's males of sexual maturity. Consequently, Finland is also home to some of the highest levels of down syndrome in the world. Not saying they're inbred or anything.
Third, and lastly, freedom of opinion is an omen that should resonate throughout Europe. I found Europeans to be curios folks. They live under the guise of thier former glory, revel in thier bloody histories and outright refuse to acknowledge that there are problems in thier socialst eutopia they cobbled and are cobbling together as they move right along into being a third world nation.
I'm just waiting and watching what sarkozy will try and do with France's diseased bid to be a superpower, the EU. Seeing as has already labeled the french Geroge Bush, one can only wonder.
Manwhore
How generous - he's promising freedom of opinion. I guess freedom of speech just doesn't cut it any more. But since Finns have this "freedom of opinion", they can think whatever non-politically correct thoughts they want, as long as they don't express them.
In fact, the State Prosecutor Mika Illman has explicitly said just this. He wrote his doctor's dissertation on – surprise, surprise – incitement against an ethnic group, and in an interview conducted with him in connection with it, he said: "A positive stament about the superiority of e. g. Finns in some area should be allowed in the name of freedom of speech, though such a statement is not a very sympathetic one, as it implies that foreigners are worse. -- In a democratic country the government and the politics it conducts should be allowed to be criticized, even strongly, and foreign politics is part of it. If that includes criticism of foreigners, that should be accepted as well, as long as it is not stated out loud." (Emphasis mine.) Not so surprisingly, these words didn't create the tiniest kind of uproar when they appeared in 2005. It was only two years later, in connection with the Ellilä case, that some people in the blogosphere started paying attention to them.
viekko- I'm willing to bet that the reason there was attention paid to it was because the news is not what was said. The news is why prohibit him from saying it?
Sweden has banned using the Swastika. do you agree?
Manwhore
I'm willing to bet that the reason there was attention paid to it was because the news is not what was said. The news is why prohibit him from saying it?
Huh? Are you referring to Illman or Ellilä here?
Sweden has banned using the Swastika. do you agree?
I don't have time to verify a source for this claim right now, but I see no reason to doubt it. However, I don't think myself that any symbols should be banned.
Back on the third day of this blog (when I had virtually no readers) I wrote about Mikko Ellilä, a Finnish blogger who was being accused with "ethnic agitation" for controversial remarks on his site, some of which were simply quoting the official Finnish crime statistics. Amazingly, the man himself dropped in and left one of my first comments.
It's not so amazing. Google sends me email alerts every time when someone posts something on the internet with my name on it. This way I get the same results emailed to me that I would get if I googled my name.
I'm a little disappointed with the judge in this case. I really believed that Mikko would be found not guilty, and his rights restored.
I was surprised by the verdict, too. I expected to be found not guilty because everything I said in the blog post in question consisted of indisputable facts. The court ruled that even though the facts were true, they were "published in a slanderous manner" and "therefore" constituted incitement to hatred.
"He could still appeal, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights, if he wished. But its unlikely he would pursue expensive appeals over such a relatively smalll sum."
I have already appealed the verdict because this is a matter of principle.
Mikko Ellilä said: I have already appealed the verdict because this is a matter of principle.
Good for you! Let us know if you need donations to help with your legal expenses.
"A positive stament about the superiority of e. g. Finns in some area should be allowed in the name of freedom of speech, though such a statement is not a very sympathetic one, as it implies that foreigners are worse. -- In a democratic country the government and the politics it conducts should be allowed to be criticized, even strongly, and foreign politics is part of it. If that includes criticism of foreigners, that should be accepted as well, as long as it is not stated out loud."
It's a bit of a garbled statement, but it could be interpreted to mean that anyone who states that the Finns are better at ski-jumping than the Spanish should be taken to court.
Hmmm.
I don't have time to verify a source for this claim right now, but I see no reason to doubt it. However, I don't think myself that any symbols should be banned.
Jag tror den darforatt jag borde i Svergie och lassade mycket om svensk politiker.
Stabil som fan.
Oops.
Jag heter Manwhore
Post a Comment