Finland: Thought crime or not?

(please follow this link to read more)

"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?

Where is going the freedom of speech

UN rights council passes Islamic resolution on religious defamation (From Herald Tribune)

I could not believe these news, I am yet trying to find the full text of this resolution. But if this is true we just took one step back in terms of freedom of speech. I think that religion is a very sensible subject. It is about our own beliefs and it has a strong emotional component.

But religion is also becoming an excuse to allow behaviour that is not normal, and not aceptable in our society.

I think that defamation is always bad, no matter if it is religious, personal or political. But this is diferent from criticizing. My doubt is if a law can trully sepparate both in this subject. For instance the movie that I posted below is it defamation or criticizing? Or saying that some islamic pratices are bad a critic or a defamation?

For instance "The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.""

My question is in this matter: This concern is about our newspappers, some videos or does it extend to Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders? From my point of view this link is more strongly defended by the terrorist themselves when they kill in the name of Allah!

Another example: ""urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred."

Does this mean that Bin Laden movies will be banned? Or that some programs (like a lebanese program for kids that promote hate against Jews) are going to end?

One example of what can be misunderstood is: "The pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing ever since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006 in which dozens of people were killed. The publication of a different caricature in a Swedish newspaper last year again led to protests from Muslims."

I think that the reaction to that cartoons was complete non-sense. I saw all the cartoons, and the truth is that there was no defamation to Islam. I know that Islamic law does not allow representation of Muhhamad (may Peace be Upon Him) but Dannish do not live under Islamic law. And I think this separation has to be clear. For instance Islamic view of whoever eats pig is that it becomes a pig. Should this be considered a defamation of our society? I don't think so, and I am not offended at all when someone said that.

Tollerance and respect is a two way street!

Freedom of showing...

Because freedom of speech must be defended and not be an argument of extreme-right movements to gain power.

I decided to show this movie (from T. Van Gogh) because:

a) Shows a reality that some women go through and must be condemmed by everybody so it won't be repited.

b) Shows how much we have changed in four years.

P.S. This is my second time that I try to comeback. Sorry for not being writing...

Love the sinner, hate the sin?

In Internet and other debates a distinction is often drawn between attacking a person’s ideas and attacking the person themselves. The first is seen as healthy, objective criticism, while the second is merely an ad hominem attack designed to rouse tempers rather than provoke discussion.

But can the distinction be so easily made? Can we draw a line between a person and the ideas they hold? I don’t think we can.

Consider the following: “It’s not you I’m calling hideous, just the clothes you wear!” Or, closer to home for a lot of us here: “I didn’t insult you, I just called your blog a mess of infantile, badly-written drivel!”

Both would be perceived as attacks on us by association: I choose the clothes I wear, I write my blog, etc. The same can be said for more ideological matters: Can we really separate criticising a religion from criticising those who believe in it?

Our ideas often have an emotional investment simply because they are our ideas. They reflect who we are and our ability to think. Suggesting that someone’s political views are misguided, for example, is inevitably to suggest that they themselves stupid enough to hold such views.

If we were purely rational beings, selecting ideas purely on a cost-benefit type basis, then we’d have no trouble adopting or abandoning them in light of new information. But we’re often more emotional/instinctive beings. The ability to rationally determine which political/economic system is best for 60 million odd fellow-citizens living in an increasingly connected world is beyond most of us, so we rely on gut-instinct and the emotional impact of certain events to guide us in what’s hopefully the right direction: a simple distrust of government, or experience of poverty can have more influence over our political thinking then the works of Smith, Marx, Keynes and Milton combined a lot of the time. Rational arguments are then drawn up after the fact to support our own beliefs and attack those which are different.

Human beings crave certainty: we like to think that our ideas are correct and that the life we’ve chosen is the right one. To this end, we wrap ideas and concepts around us like a protective cloak. To have someone start pulling on a loose thread can be an uncomfortable experience.

An help on Freedom of Speech

[Note: if you find this product important please link or send this post or advertise the content of it]

I never thought of talking on this site about a product, but I think this one can make a change on the use of Internet in countries that have censorship. On the 1st of December it was release the Psiphon software. This software is a "censorship circumvention solution that allows users to access blocked sites in countries where the Internet is censored. Psiphon turns a regular home computer into a personal, encrypted server capable of retrieving and displaying web pages anywhere.
Psiphon operates through networks of trust. There are Psiphon providers who install and administer a Psiphon server (psiphonode) in an uncensored country, and Psiphon users (psiphonites) who log in and access the server from a country that censors the Internet". (taken from here).

You can download this software for free from the Psiphon site (click here). The idea is that the Psiphon providers will have a secure URL that Psiphon users can use when navigating the web. This URL is only given by the providers to persons that they want by the process of social networking (emails, posting on blogs, etc...). Since I am not a Web software expert I urge you to go to the site to know more (they have a good explanation on their FAQ which is in English, Spanish and Chinese) .

I already downloaded it and I am currently still learning how to use it. I know that for now probably it will be easy for the countries that have censorship to single out this addresses and find who is using it (i am not completely sure about this statement) but in the future if there is a massive existence of Psiphon providers it will be eventually impossible for authorities to single out and block this URL's.

I don't know if I am being too optimistic but I really think that we can make a difference by using this software and contribute to reinforce the freedom of speech and the free use of the Web.
Sometimes a little effort can make a huge difference, I hope that this will be the case.