"Yesterday a Finnish blogger, Mikko Ellilä, was convicted of what could be called, despite all the political and legal jargon, a thoughtcrime. What he did was tell several hardly disputable facts: that, on average, white people have a higher IQ than Africans (this difference may be due to nutrition, education and/or genetics but that's beside the point), that crime rates are exceptionally high for Africans (or their offshoots such as African-Americans) and that immigrants consume more of society's resources than what they contribute, i.e., that immigration is a net loss, at least in a welfare state such as ours." (Sandt's Observations )
I don't think that all this thoughts are without dispute. For instance:
- "on average, white people have a higher IQ than Africans" how did they conclude that? Did the studies picked persons from the same level of degree and social background? What I am saying is that you can only conclude that if you pick two persons who are equal and the only diference is the race (one thing that is almost impossible)
- "that crime rates are exceptionally high for Africans" again you have to exclude all things besides race to reach this conclusion. Mixing factors will not allow you to reach a valid conclusion.
- "immigrants consume more of society's resources than what they contribute" my doubt goes if the study did valued the benefit that all Finish have for having lower wages workers? And the jobs they have, don't they create value to Finland?
For me the hard part to believe is that a lawyer could not say that what this blogger said wasn't true, because the hard part is to prove that that claims are true and not the opposite. It is nearly impossible to single out race as a factor for having less IQ or being more prone to violence. There is no cientific proof for this claim. Is this a thought crime? I don't think so.
But this imposes a big and diferent question: Where is the limit for freedom of speech?