The authors and primary beneficiaries of 'race hate' laws
The thrust of the story would seem to be that Finland has just enacted laws against "incitement to race hatred" in order to protect its Muslim population.
The line taken is very simplistic and I suggest the following background be taken into account:The extract quoted from Finland's law against "race-hate" quoted in the story bears very close similarity to Britain's "Public Order Act (As Amended by the Race Relations Act)". The Act has probably been amended (yet again!) since I last had to study it, but the relevant part was Section 19 in which it was a criminal offence to: "....... publish any matter intended or likely in all the circumstances to incite racial hatred......"
I was convicted at Kingston Crown Court in 1978 for publishing in two issues of 'National Front News' (the NF's broadsheet which I edited) material held to be in contravention of that law. I received two 6 month jail terms (suspended for two years); an £800 fine, plus court costs.The articles in NF News were equally against the permanent settlement in Britain of ALL aliens and against alien influence over British affairs.
More coverage was given to the Coloured aliens, as they were the more visible intruders. NF News was tabloid-style was aimed at the man-in-the-street.
Britain's race laws have been replicated in White nations the world over, except in the USA where the First Amendment protects free speech except in cases of direct incitement to criminal violence.
You and your Finnish bloggers should be aware that Britain's law against "race hate" was first drafted and promoted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews during the later 1940s/early 1950s. Their name for this law at that time was "The Group Libel Bill". It was substantially adopted and put into law (amending the Public Order Act) in 1967 by the then Labour Government, but with the support of most Conservative Party MPs.
Since then the "race hate" component of the Public Order Act has been revised several times. On every occasion the revision has been floated by.....guess who?.......the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
The most notorious and pernicious of these amendments, which was urged on Lord Justice Scarman when he was conducting in 1975 the Public Judicial Inquiry into the Disturbances at Red Lion Square in London of 1974, and adopted by him in his Report to the Home Secretary.
It urged the removal of the obligation on the Prosecution to prove that an alleged incitement to racial hatred had been "INTENDED" and replacing that with the far easier (and very ambiguous) obligation to prove that incitement to racial hatred was "LIKELY in all the circumstances".I summarised the circumstances in another posting as follows:"In 1974 I organised a march in London from Westminster to the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, to protest against a Labour government amnesty to all illegal immigrants. A vast crowd of Reds attacked the Police who were guarding the hall which the NF had booked for a meeting. In the riot a student supporter of the International Marxist Group was killed, it is thought by a mounted Police officer."
A public judicial inquiry conducted by Lord Scarman accepted the NF was a mile away at the time of the riot.
Even so, he urged oppressive amendments to the 'Racial Incitement' section of the Public Order Act.Thus Scarman (a friend of Home Secretary Roy Jenkins who had appointed him to conduct the Inquiry, and who had granted the amnesty!) rewarded the rioters and penalised their intended victims by proposing changes to the Act restricting the right to protest against immigration in the future."Scarman's recommendations were accepted by Jenkins with undisguised delight -- and duly enacted, with the help of many Conservative MPs (who were desperate not to be dubbed as 'racists'.)"
The Jews, therefore, not the Muslims, were the authors of laws designed to criminalise expressions of opposition to the concept of multi-racialism; and the Jews, not the Muslims, were the intended beneficiaries of such laws.
The Jews pushed for these laws not merely for the obvious reason that they wanted to put themselves above criticism, but because Jewry thrives (and casts a lower profile) in multi-racial societies. I had a frank admission of the latter aspect from a senior journalist of the Jewish Chronicle, Gerald Smith, in 1970.But the Jews have an even deeper and more sinister reason for promoting multi-racialism (among gentiles).Because Jewry is protected by the religious (de facto racialist) code which is imposed on its membership, it becomes relatively stronger as other peoples descend into racial chaos.
This is an "evolutionary/natural selection" strategy which has been well described in the academic work of Professor Kevin MacDonald of California State University (Long Beach), against whom U.S. Jewry has launched a campaign in recent weeks.
Are you familiar with Prof. MacDonald's work?
I have plenty on file if you would like to see some samples.The only problem for the Jews in encouraging Coloured Immigration into Britain and the rest of Europe is that their policy has introduced the Muslims into the mix. The Muslims, unlike all other varieties of Coloured Immigrant, are politically and religiously organised and motivated against Jewry and Zionism, for obvious reasons: Palestine, Iraq, etc.It is because Jewry has woken up to the Muslim threat (to them as well as to us) inherent in their promotion of Coloured Immigration into Europe that we see so much anti-Muslim propaganda in the mainstream media these days -- which kind of stuff would attract prosecution were it to be directed against any other kind of ethnic minority group (especially the Jews!).
It is for this reason that the "Mohammed as terrorist-bomber" cartoons were tolerated and left unprosecuted anywhere. Your Finnish bloggers either do not know -- or chose to suppress -- the fact that the person responsible for those 'Danish' cartoons which they mention was a Jew called Flemming Rose. You will be charmed by his Levantine smirk. [See my attached Jpg.]Rose produced those cartoon with the deliberate intention of stirring-up Muslim outrage and violent protests, knowing that such protests would attract bad publicity (for the Muslims). How's that for an example of "....intended or likely in all the circumstances to incite racial hatred...."??
Rose's cartoons were not an exercise in "free speech" but a cunningly calculated coat-trailing operation. [See my attached Jpg cartoon lampooning the "Free Speech" humbug.]His cartoons were quickly picked up by the anti-Muslim, pro-Jewish British National Party and made the basis for a widely-distributed leaflet which attracted no prosecution. [See the attached Pdf file of the BNP leaflet.]
It is with all these facts in mind that I find the material from Finland simplistic, disingenuous and ill-informed.I do not not want any significant body -- let alone a multiplicity -- of any variety of ethnic aliens to be settled permanently in Britain, be they Muslim or Jew, African, Indian or whatever. In that matter I have no special favourites or prejudice.You should not be such a sucker and conduit for Jew-inspired anti-Muslim propaganda.
From: Robert Reis
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT)To: John Bryant
Subject: Finland - bad NewsWednesday, May 02, 2007
From: Robert Reis
Subject: Finland - bad NewsWednesday, May 02, 2007
Finland Cracks Down by Baron Bodissey
A followup to yesterday¹s report: I just got a note from Vasarahammer, with his summary of Mikko Ellilä¹s situation. Mr. Ellilä is a Finnish writer and blogger who has been summoned by the police for a hearing under Finland¹s ³incitement against groups² law.Several commenters have expressed the opinion that this whole business is likely to amount to nothing, and that Mr. Ellilä¹s case will be dismissed when he goes in for his hearing on Monday.But we¹re not going to take that for granted. A little international pressure will help concentrate the mind of the Finnish government and make it realize its mistake in harassing Mikko Ellilä.
I suggest a two-pronged plan:1. If you are a blogger, publicize this on your blog. If you are Finnish, and have additional information on Mikko Ellilä, send it in to us or to other blogs to add to the publicity. In particular, a photo would help ‹ I couldn¹t find one.2. Contact the Finnish authorities.
For our American readers, the Finnish embassy has a handy US map with state-by-state contact information here.
Here¹s the main contact info for their embassy in Washington:Embassy of Finland 3301 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20008 U.S.A Tel. +1-202-298 5800 Fax: +1-202-298 6030 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Don¹t be shy: remind the Finnish authorities how highly-regarded free speech is in their country. It seems that they may have forgotten that.Here are the details on the case as sent by Vasarahammer:
Dear Baron,A little bit of background information related to Mikko Ellilä¹s case.Finnish penal code contains a law that criminalizes incitement against a group of people. Here¹s an inadequate translation of that law (Criminal code section 11 paragraph 8):"Whoever publicly distributes statements or other information that threatens or abuses some national, racial, ethnic or religious group or group of people that can be regarded as such, shall be sentenced for incitement against a group of people to pay a fine or imprisoned with maximum penalty of two years."The law is very vague and leaves a lot of room for creative interpretation. Basically you can say that it is illegal in Finland to state your honest opinion about Islam in public. There are similar laws in other Nordic countries and I suspect that this law has been almost directly copied from Swedish penal code.---------------When the organization called Suomen Sisu published the Mohammad cartoons on their website, a police investigation was conducted based on the above-mentioned law. However, the case never went to court, since the public prosecutor decided against pursuing the case.Here is the account of one person who saw what happened in the Suomen Sisu case. It is in Finnish, so I will translate the most important parts.I followed from a close distance the Mohammad cartoon furore in Finland. We tried to contact various organizations that advocate freedom of speech, various institutions, newspapers and other media.
The reply was a deafening silence. I first thought that this was due to the reputation of Suomen Sisu, but after the Kaltio scandal broke, the silence of the media in defending the rights of Suomen Sisu could no longer be explained by anything else than fear.Based on those experiences I am completely sure that if the case had went to court and the Finnish publishers of the cartoons had been prosecuted, the media would have accepted this without questioning the merits of the case.The Kaltio case was about a small cultural newspaper that published a cartoon strip drawn by Ville Ranta. The comic strip featured a masked figure of prophet Muhammad and it criticized the gutless behaviour of Finnish leading politicians during the cartoon controversy. The editor of Kaltio was fired after several advertisers withdrew their ads from the paper. The mainstream media did not regard this as an important freedom of speech issue.Mikko Ellilä is not a politically correct writer. He is however very brave in writing under his own name and not using a pseudonym. This also makes him an easy target for the authorities.
Now you should understand why Fjordman uses a pseudonym.
Recently, Government Minority Ombudsman Mikko Puumalainen threatened that Government would crack down against internet sites considered as racist. I suspect that Mikko Ellilä¹s questioning by the police has something to do with Puumalainen¹s statement, though it cannot be verified at this stage. By making the issue public you are helping Mikko and maybe in some way help Finland get rid of that restrictive law.