Thursday, December 15, 2016

Why Cameroonians must denounce the army

In 2015 Cameroonians came out en masse in major cities across the country and on social media to show "solidarity" with the army in the fight against Boko Haram. Twenty two months later the army deployed to crack down on civilians in Bamenda. Cameroonians who declared "Je suis l'armée camerounaise" in 2015 have a moral responsibility to now denounce the army and distance themselves from a state apparatus that has a reputation of brutality and human rights violations - an apparatus which they, knowingly or unknowingly, endorsed and emboldened.

Over the past couple of weeks Cameroon's minority English-speaking regions have borne the brunt of yet another episode of brutality and killing by state security forces. According to Reuters police in Cameroon shot and killed four anti-government demonstrators on Thursday 8 December 2016. Protesters were reportedly opposed to a planned rally by the ruling political party, Cameroon People's Democratic Front (CPDM). A Reuters reporter saw police open fire on the crowd.

Graphic photos and videos flooded Facebook during the protests as demonstrators and people on the ground uploaded images in real time. One of the numerous videos circulating on Facebook shows two dead civilians lying on the tarmac. Another video shows demonstrators carrying a dead civilian on a makeshift stretcher. Another shows a street in Bamenda looking like a war zone with the army on patrol. Another shows army personnel intimidating civilians with guns. A 12-year old boy was also reportedly shot, and there are videos of people fleeing their homes in Bambili in the northwest region.

According to a BBC correspondent in Bamenda one victim was shot in the mouth and two others wee shot in the head and back of the neck. More than fifteen casualties were reportedly treated at the Bamenda hospital - many of them critically wounded. The deaths came after a month of protests sparked by lawyers in Bamenda. Lawyers in Buea, teachers, students and the general public later joined the struggle.

As if the mayhem committed in Bamenda was not enough, more military personnel were reportedly sent to Bamenda to join efforts to quell protests.

My Take

Screenshot of Facebook video showing army in Bamenda
In 2015 I argued that civilian show of "solidarity" with the Cameroonian army was misguided and based on emotion rather than reason. I argued that the Cameroonian army is brutal and has no regard for human rights. I cited Amnesty International's 2014/2015 annual report (see page 95) which implicated Cameroon's security forces, including the Rapid Intervention Brigade (BIR) in human rights violations such as killings, extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and illegal detentions - mostly committed in the context of fighting terrorism.

I argued, in a blog post, that the demonstrations organized in Yaounde and Douala to show support for the military would have been crushed by the same military if the demonstrations were anti-government demonstrations. I concluded that I do not think the "new-found solidarity" between the army and the people will endure since the army will enthusiastically repress the people the next time it is deployed to do so. I submitted that when that time comes the slogan "Je suis l'armée camerounaise" would, perhaps, change to "Je ne suis pas l'armée camerounaise."

Well, twenty two months later, needless to say, the time has come. As of the time of this writing the army, together with police and gendarmes, is in Bamenda repressing civilians. This time Cameroonian civilians are the enemy - not Boko Haram militants. There are reports of alleged acts of violence against civilians and private property in Bamenda.

And according to Amnesty International there are 130 people still missing 20 months after they were arrested in a crackdown on suspected Boko Haram members in a villages of Magdeme and Doublé in the Far North region on 27 December 2014. At least 9 civilians, including a child, were also killed during the cordon-and-search operation. In addition, more than 70 homes and buildings were destroyed. Amnesty International urged Cameroonian authorities to stop using the fight against Boko Haram to justify blatant violation of human rights.

In essence, mindful of the brutal crackdown on English-speaking Cameroonian civilians in the north west and south west regions, and human rights violations committed in the Far North region, Cameroonian state security forces violate human rights on two fronts: in the fight against terrorism and in the fight against unarmed anti-government protesters, including lawyers, teachers, students and the general civilian population.

To reiterate: "Je suis l'armée camerounaise" demontrations in February 2015 were a misguided show of support for a brutal force, and an endorsement of atrocities committed by the latter. Moi, "Je ne suis pas l'armée camerounaise." I am not the army of Cameroon. I was not the army in 2015, I am not the army in 2016 and I won't be the brutal army of Cameroon until human rights violations committed by the army are stopped, investigated and all perpetrators brought to book.

Monday, December 5, 2016

Brutalization of lawyers in Cameroon and the "Anglophone problem"

Police brutality during peaceful protests in Cameroon is an undisputed reality. It happens all the time. Cameroonian police (and sometimes the army) routinely use illegal brute force to crack down on unarmed civilians - usually with absolute impunity. Police brutality in Cameroon has no bounds as it affects everyone, including lawyers - a highly respected group of people in countries where the rule of law prevails. In countries like Cameroon where there is no respect for the rule of law there is equally no respect for lawyers by law enforcement officers who, due to decades of impunity for crimes committed in uniform, think they are above the law and above the people they are meant to serve and protect.

For quite some time now lawyers in the English-speaking region of Cameroon have had grievances and have taken peaceful, legal steps to address them. Their grievances include the conception of laws in French, presentation of the laws in parliament in French, promulgation in French and wrong translation of laws into English - which, according to a lawyer speaking to BBC Africa during a demonstration on 23 June 2016, lead to unclear laws and incrimination of anglophones. Lawyers in English-speaking regions of Cameroon believe their "jurisdiction" and "common law principles" are being "invaded." Other grievances voiced during the June protest include opposition to a new law that, among other things, criminalizes non-payment of rents by tenants and grants immunity to government ministers. Under the controversial new law, according to VOA news, tenants who fall behind on their rents by at least two months could be imprisoned for three years. Lawyers in English-speaking parts of Cameroon believe the law is designed to protect the rich and powerful. The controversial bill was passed despite opposition by lawyers.


Several months after their voices went unheard lawyers in Bamenda took to the streets again on 8 November 2016 to, once again, voice their grievances. According to the BBC (in French) they demanded that legal texts and laws be translated into English as required by the Constitution. The lawyers gathered in front of the Court of Appeal in Bamenda to announce the creation of a new Bar Association for anglophone lawyers. Security forces intervened as Bobga Harmony, president of the North West Lawyers Association, started explaining the rationale behind the creation of the new Bar Association. At this point the lawyers decided to stage a protest march in the streets. Police used tear gas to disperse them. The BBC reports that since 11 October, anglophone lawyers have been protesting the non-existence of English versions of legal texts, including the "uniform Act" of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (OHADA), the Inter-African Conference on Insurance Markets (CIMA) code and the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) regulations.

Peaceful demonstrations by anglophone lawyers spread to other parts of English-speaking Cameroon. On 10 November 2016 lawyers in Buea in the southwest region demonstrated - voicing same grievances as their colleagues in Bamenda. Protesting lawyers in Buea met with heavy-handed police response. Lawyers were reportedly brutalized, their offices ransacked, and their wigs and gowns seized by police. Many were left injured and bloodied. Lawyers on their way to Buea in cars and taxis were reportedly harassed around Mutengene, Mile 14, Mile 16, Mile 17 and Muea. Lawyers' phones were seized and destroyed, and those heading to Buea on that day were, according to reports, asked to return to where they were coming from. Hotels were reportedly raided by police in search of lawyers, and those lodging in targeted hotels were harassed by so-called law enforcement officers. A video on Facebook shows a disturbing case in which a lawyer was harassed, shoved and pushed to the ground by police officers in riot gear. In the video a female police officer can be clearly heard telling her colleagues, in French, to beat up the lawyer. "Frappe! Frappé lui", she shouts. The incident reportedly took place in Muea in the southwest region. Photos of the incident are available on Facebook. The video in question is also available on YouTube.

This episode of police brutality in Cameroon was not limited to lawyers.

Teachers and the general public joined the strike. Teachers reportedly oppose what has been described as the "imposition of French in schools in Anglophone parts of the country." Protesting residents voice other grievances, including - according to protest signs - poor roads, no jobs, no water. According to the BBC at least 100 people have been arrested following protests and several people are being treated with bullet wounds in hospitals. Police reportedly used live bullets and one person was reported killed. A Facebook video shows the alleged victim.

University students in Buea also bore the brunt of police brutality. Many were molested by police and disturbing videos such as a video showing police officers armed with sticks rolling students in a mud puddle flooded Facebook. In another video police can be seen invading student quarters. In another, state security forces can be seen beating a student. A photo of a student with a bloodied head allegedly inflicted by police in Buea is a familiar sight. Historically, numerous Cameroonian civilians have been beaten, bloodied and killed by police during protests.

According to a security message for US citizens released by the US department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the US embassy in Cameroon deferred all non-essential travel for US embassy personnel to the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon from November 21 to 23 as result of planned strikes and demonstrations. An indication of how bad and volatile the situation is.

My Take

Police brutality is endemic in Cameroon, and impunity for blatant acts of violence committed by so-called law enforcement officers against peaceful protesters is the order of the day. Many of the perpetrators often come across as angry, untrained and corrupt. Impunity for such crimes emboldens perpetrators - many of who think, wrongfully of course, that they are above the law by virtue of being soldiers, gendarmes or police officers. In fact, as sad as this may sound, it is plausible to conclude that given the sorry-state of affairs in Cameroon - police officers in the country are above the law. Numerous peaceful protesters have been killed over the years by state security forces and - to the best of my recollection - no one has ever been brought to justice. In fact, as the recent episode unfolded I spoke with a lawyer who has practiced law in Cameroon for almost 15 years, and he said he could not provide "any jurisprudence" related to police brutality. The state of affairs speaks to two things: Cameroon is either a lawless state, or police officers are above the law. I subscribe to the latter. The fact that this time police officers have gone as far as brutalizing lawyers is an indication of the new-found courage vested in them by many years of impunity for criminal violence committed by police against civilians in Cameroon.

Over the past couple of weeks following the demonstration by lawyers, some Cameroonians have questioned whether or not there is an "Anglophone problem" in Cameroon. Some have even raised questions about the definition of an "anglophone." I would like to make it as clear as possible that the way I see it - there is an "anglophone problem" in Cameroon, and the problem goes deeper than anglophones being referred to derogatorily as "les anglos." I do not have to search deep to find reasons to support the claim that there is an anglophone problem.

Laws, for example, are conceived in French, debated in French and promulgated in French. The French language, which is now perceived by many English-speaking Cameroonians as the "language of the oppressor" is constantly being used by police and other state authorities to alienate and intimidate English-speaking Cameroonians in offices and public spaces around the country. On the flip side English-speaking Cameroonians in the French side of Cameroon are compelled by circumstances to learn and speak French. Video footage showing a female police officer shouting "frappe! Frappé lui" to her colleagues as they harass a lawyer in Muea is a case in point. It is worthy to mention that some anglophone police officers sometimes use French in order to intimidate and distance themselves from their fellow anglophones. Many of them understand the impact of French on English-speaking Cameroonians.

The state of roads in Bamenda also points to a problem. According to a protester speaking from a casket on the roof of car Chinese workers dig roads in Bamenda and break water pipes. When this happens it is the locals that pay for the damage. In another video segment the protester asserts that the things that happen in Bamenda cannot happen in Yaounde, which is the capital and a predominantly French city. I share the view that a Chinese company cannot go to Yaounde (or any major French-speaking city) dig roads, break pipes without consequences.

Furthermore, the marginalization of English-speaking Cameroonians is reflected in tiny details that are ignored but go a long way, such the texts on the currency of the country - the Central African CFA franc. A look at an image of the 10000 francs note for example reveals that everything written on it is in French. The same is true for the 2000 francs note, the 1000 francs note, the 500 francs note, just to cite a few. Now, compare that with currencies of other bilingual countries such as the currency of Canada or the currency of Belgium or the currency of Switzerland or the currency of Burundi, just to cite a few. Some supporters of the Cameroonian regime and those who argue that there is no anglophone problem would argue that the CFA franc is in French because it is a common currency shared by six countries in central Africa, namely: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon - hence one of them cannot influence the language on the currency. This argument does not hold water. The euro, which is the official currency of the eurozone, is used by 19 countries across Europe -- countries with different languages. The euro however is representative of the countries that use the currency. For example the edges of the Finnish euro coin reads "SUOMI FINLAND" (the name of the country in Finnish and Swedish, the country's two official languages). This is in line with the December 2006 amendment of the euro coin, according to the Bank of Finland. French is the only language on the Central African CFA franc because the countries involved have no regard for minority rights.

Some have argued that there is no "anglophone problem" because there are French-speaking Cameroonians who also bear the brunt of the brutal Biya regime that has controlled Cameroon for more than three decades. It is true that there are Francophones who also suffer as a result of bad governance, widespread corruption and impunity orchestrated or condoned by the predominantly French Biya administration  but this does not take away anything from the plight of anglophones. According to South African History Online, large sections of white South Africans have lived in poverty for generations. And there are white south Africans living in poverty long after the end of Apartheid. This does not mean there was no discrimination against black South Africans. In the South African context, it could be argued that not all white people benefited directly from the Apartheid regime but such an assertion would not delegitimize the struggle of black South Africans. French-speaking Cameroonians make up majority of Cameroon's population. Eight out of ten regions in the country are primarily French-speaking - representing more than eighty percent (80%) of the country's population. The plight of the minority is not dependent on whether or not all of the majority is better off.

The "anglophone problem" in Cameroon is complex, and those who raise the issue risk being branded enemies of the state, and persecuted by a repressive regime that has been in power for more than thirty years by way of brutal crackdown on dissent and phony elections. This should not be the case because the problem is real. Not all those who subscribe to the school of thought that there is an Anglophone problem are "secessionists." Many are and many are not. The debate is toxic but the rights and freedoms of people on all sides of the political discourse should be respected. Those who support secession should respect the stance of those who do not, and vice versa. There are no "traitors" - a very strong word commonly used by those who advocate secession to describe those who do not support the cause. Both sides, I think, have the best interest of English-speaking Cameroonians at heart. The only difference lies in approach. More importantly, the state must respect the people's right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Civil dialogue is required in order to arrive at a sustainable solution, which is not necessarily secession. Secession, I believe, should be the last resort. There are bilingual and multilingual countries around the world that are stronger because they are not divided along linguistic lines. All linguistic groups work together, mindful of their rights and duties, to advance the national interest.

The issues raised by Cameroon Common Law lawyers - who were later joined by teachers, students and general English-speaking Cameroonian public - are genuine, and many of the problems could be easily solved by good governance - an ingredient lacking in Cameroon under president Paul Biya. A good place to start would be a change in (government) leadership, and the creation of system of government that allows, for example, the election of regional administrators such as governors, Divisional Officers (DOs) and Sub-divisional officers (SDOs). In this way regional administrators would be accountable to the people who elect them - not to the person who appoints them. In addition, election of local administrators would also get rid of "corruption factories" like the National School of Administration and Magistracy known by its French acronym: ENAM - a relic of colonialism created in 1959. While qualified Cameroonians should be free to live and work in any region of the country, French-speaking individuals, including judges and teachers who cannot communicate in English should not be imposed on English-speakers by appointment or presidential decrees, and vice versa.

Police brutality will not solve the numerous problems that threaten the existence of the Republic of Cameroon (or la République - as some prefer to call it). Brutal criminal acts by security forces would only further tear the country apart and drive it over a cliff into becoming yet another failed state plagued by civil unrest on the African continent.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Only silver lining in US election of Donald J. Trump

The 2016 U.S presidential elections, which was literally a reality TV show, is now behind us but even more shocking than the nasty political campaign is the rise to power of a reality TV star who defiled everything the United States of America supposedly stands for on his way to become the country's 45th president. During the campaign, his opponent described half of his supporters as "deplorables" -- racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it. Regardless, Trump got elected. But there's a silver lining: majority of Americans did not vote for him - which means majority of Americans are not deplorables. 

On June 16, 2015 Donald J. Trump introduced himself to the world by connecting Mexican immigrants with rape and drugs, and then promised mass deportation and a border wall. In another hugely controversial statement on December 7, 2015 he called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States...". The statement provoked dismay and claims of racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia.

Screenshot of The Telegraph
It is worth mentioning that long before the presidential campaign started, Trump (and his father) were sued by the Department of Justice for racial discrimination related to their housing business in Brooklyn. They were accused of "anti-black bias" in apartment rentals in the city. Trump Management Corporation was accused of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in its operation of 39 buildings. According to the New York Times the Justice Department contended that Trump Corporation had refused to rent or negotiate rentals because of race and colors, and required different rental terms and conditions because of race as well as misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available. Assistant Attorney General at the time, J. Stanley Pottingar, told the New Times that the Trump case was referred to the Justice Department by the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

On January 23, 2016 Trump boasted that support for his presidential bid would not lose supporters even if he shoots somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue. This came after he pondered the prospect of killing journalists. At a rally in South Carolina, Trump mocked a disabled reporter by mimicking the reporter's impaired movement. In fact Donald Trump controversies abound, including the scandal involving the so-called Trump University which many of its students who paid as much as $35,000, according to The Atlantic, described as a scam. In March 2016, during the presidential campaign, a New York appeals court ruled that a lawsuit which was filed in 2013 claiming that Donald Trump's now defunct Trump University defrauded consumers can go ahead. According to the lawsuit the Trump initiative bilked thousands of students collectively of $40 million.

The list of Trump lawsuits and controversies is long. His treatment women and his attitude toward them is worthy of an honorary mention. His "blood" comments about Megyn Kelly who pressed him on his misogynistic and sexist comments about women revealed his impudent attitude toward women. Then came the story of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, and how Donald Trump bullied and ridiculed her because of her looks and Latina background. Then came the 2005 video footage in which Trump brags about sexual assault against women. The video was followed by a catalog of sexual assault allegations by several women.

My Take  

First of all, it is unconscionable that Donald Trump got elected president of the United States. His zero administrative experience, his temperament, erratic tweeting - sometimes at 3 AM - and his long list of lawsuits and controversies related to discrimination, racism, xenophobia, sexism and sexual harassment allegations should have eliminated him. Hillary Clinton was right: many - if not half - of Donald J. Trump's supporters could be put into what she calls the "basket of deplorables." Hillary later apologized for the statement -- but she should not have. There should be no apologies for calling out bigotry. Chances are anyone who supports and votes for a bigot is bigoted or does not care about bigotry. Supporters of Donald Trump, including members of Ku Klux Klan voted for a candidate who during the campaign flirted with racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, you name it; they elected a candidate who used fear-mongering and appealed to the dark side of the electorate. In the wake of his election the KKK, which endorsed him in April 2016, announced a victory parade to celebrate victory. Bona fide racists rooted for, and continue to root for Trump. Deplorable.

Donald Trump did not only embolden old school racists like established members of the KKK. His campaign inspired a new generation of racists among young students in schools and campuses around the country which are grappling with hostilities against minorities following the election. For instance, students at York County School of Technology were recorded chanting "white power" while carrying a pro-Trump sign; a prayer room for Muslim students at New York University was defaced with the word "Trump!" the day after the election; students in Royal Oak Middle School can be heard chanting "build the wall! Build the wall! in the school cafeteria. Racists graffi and hate crimes linked to Trump's campaign message have also been reported after the election.

Some analysts and commentators have argued that not all Trump supporters are deplorable because some of them are "well-meaning" ordinary Americans worried about "the establishment" and the state of the economy. I disagree. Anyone who shuns social justice in favor of  a divisive candidate who promises to fix the economy could be safely put into the basket of deplorables. According to Fareed Zakaria, Donald Trump re-made the political map because of huge support from working class whites, and right wing populism is one the rise across a variety of western countries, including in countries with strong economic growth. Many Trump supporters - mostly white working class men - used the economy in this historic election to mask racism and xenophobia, and justify their desire to "make America white again" by building a wall, banning Muslims from entering the United States, deporting millions of immigrants, amongst other things.

The only good news following the shocking outcome of the 2016 U.S presidential election campaign is the popular vote. According to CBS news Hillary Clinton is on track to winning the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. Hours after she called Trump to concede she was winning the popular vote. It means majority of Americans cannot be put into the basket of deplorables - because majority of Americans did not vote for a deplorable candidate. Donald Trump got elected as a result of the Electoral College - a system he himself described in in a tweet in 2012 after America's first black president got re-elected as "a disaster for democracy" after America's first black president got re-elected; a system in which a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election. Trump condemned the system regardless of the fact that Barack Obama won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. That is how much he despised America's first black president.

When news broke that Donald J. Trump had been elected 45th U.S. president my fear was that he might have won the popular vote -- which would have meant that majority of the American electorate share his divisive views. I was relieved to an extent to learn that majority of Americans did not vote for him. Trump did not win the popular vote. It means majority of Americans do not subscribe to his views and did not want him to become president - hence the numerous anti-Trump protests in several cities and on campuses across the country following the election. The election of Trump offended the collective conscience of most Americans - many of whom took to the streets to express opposition. This, I think, is the only silver lining in what will go down in history as the most ridiculous U.S. presidential election campaign; a campaign that culminated in the election of the first most politically inexperienced, erratic, openly xenophobic, Islamophobic and sexist U.S presidential candidate who has never held public office or served in the military. Majority of Americans are good people, and cannot be put into the basket of deplorables. Only a minority voted for Trump.

Only silver lining in US election of Donald J. Trump

The 2016 U.S presidential elections, which was literally a reality TV show, is now behind us but even more shocking than the nasty political campaign is the rise to power of a reality TV star who defiled everything the United States of America supposedly stands for on his way to become the country's 45th president. During the campaign, his opponent described half of his supporters as "deplorables" -- racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it. Regardless, Trump got elected. But there's a silver lining: majority of Americans did not vote for him - which means majority of Americans are not deplorables. 

On June 16, 2015 Donald J. Trump introduced himself to the world by connecting Mexican immigrants with rape and drugs, and then promised mass deportation and a border wall. In another hugely controversial statement on December 7, 2015 he called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States...". The statement provoked dismay and claims of racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia.

Screenshot of The Telegraph
It is worth mentioning that long before the presidential campaign started, Trump (and his father) were sued by the Department of Justice for racial discrimination related to their housing business in Brooklyn. They were accused of "anti-black bias" in apartment rentals in the city. Trump Management Corporation was accused of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in its operation of 39 buildings. According to the New York Times the Justice Department contended that Trump Corporation had refused to rent or negotiate rentals because of race and colors, and required different rental terms and conditions because of race as well as misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available. Assistant Attorney General at the time, J. Stanley Pottingar, told the New Times that the Trump case was referred to the Justice Department by the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

On January 23, 2016 Trump boasted that support for his presidential bid would not lose supporters even if he shoots somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue. This came after he pondered the prospect of killing journalists. At a rally in South Carolina, Trump mocked a disabled reporter by mimicking the reporter's impaired movement. In fact Donald Trump controversies abound, including the scandal involving the so-called Trump University which many of its students who paid as much as $35,000, according to The Atlantic, described as a scam. In March 2016, during the presidential campaign, a New York appeals court ruled that a lawsuit which was filed in 2013 claiming that Donald Trump's now defunct Trump University defrauded consumers can go ahead. According to the lawsuit the Trump initiative bilked thousands of students collectively of $40 million.

The list of Trump lawsuits and controversies is long. His treatment women and his attitude toward them is worthy of an honorary mention. His "blood" comments about Megyn Kelly who pressed him on his misogynistic and sexist comments about women revealed his impudent attitude toward women. Then came the story of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, and how Donald Trump bullied and ridiculed her because of her looks and Latina background. Then came the 2005 video footage in which Trump brags about sexual assault against women. The video was followed by a catalog of sexual assault allegations by several women.

My Take  

First of all, it is unconscionable that Donald Trump got elected president of the United States. His zero administrative experience, his temperament, erratic tweeting - sometimes at 3 AM - and his long list of lawsuits and controversies related to discrimination, racism, xenophobia, sexism and sexual harassment allegations should have eliminated him. Hillary Clinton was right: many - if not half - of Donald J. Trump's supporters could be put into what she calls the "basket of deplorables." Hillary later apologized for the statement -- but she should not have. There should be no apologies for calling out bigotry. Chances are anyone who supports and votes for a bigot is bigoted or does not care about bigotry. Supporters of Donald Trump, including members of Ku Klux Klan voted for a candidate who during the campaign flirted with racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, you name it; they elected a candidate who used fear-mongering and appealed to the dark side of the electorate. In the wake of his election the KKK, which endorsed him in April 2016, announced a victory parade to celebrate victory. Bona fide racists rooted for, and continue to root for Trump. Deplorable.

Donald Trump did not only embolden old school racists like established members of the KKK. His campaign inspired a new generation of racists among young students in schools and campuses around the country which are grappling with hostilities against minorities following the election. For instance, students at York County School of Technology were recorded chanting "white power" while carrying a pro-Trump sign; a prayer room for Muslim students at New York University was defaced with the word "Trump!" the day after the election; students in Royal Oak Middle School can be heard chanting "build the wall! Build the wall! in the school cafeteria. Racists graffi and hate crimes linked to Trump's campaign message have also been reported after the election.

Some analysts and commentators have argued that not all Trump supporters are deplorable because some of them are "well-meaning" ordinary Americans worried about "the establishment" and the state of the economy. I disagree. Anyone who shuns social justice in favor of  a divisive candidate who promises to fix the economy could be safely put into the basket of deplorables. According to Fareed Zakaria, Donald Trump re-made the political map because of huge support from working class whites, and right wing populism is one the rise across a variety of western countries, including in countries with strong economic growth. Many Trump supporters - mostly white working class men - used the economy in this historic election to mask racism and xenophobia, and justify their desire to "make America white again" by building a wall, banning Muslims from entering the United States, deporting millions of immigrants, amongst other things.

The only good news following the shocking outcome of the 2016 U.S presidential election campaign is the popular vote. According to CBS news Hillary Clinton is on track to winning the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. Hours after she called Trump to concede she was winning the popular vote. It means majority of Americans cannot be put into the basket of deplorables - because majority of Americans did not vote for a deplorable candidate. Donald Trump got elected as a result of the Electoral College - a system he himself described in in a tweet in 2012 after America's first black president got re-elected as "a disaster for democracy" after America's first black president got re-elected; a system in which a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election. Trump condemned the system regardless of the fact that Barack Obama won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. That is how much he despised America's first black president.

When news broke that Donald J. Trump had been elected 45th U.S. president my fear was that he might have won the popular vote -- which would have meant that majority of the American electorate share his divisive views. I was relieved to an extent to learn that majority of Americans did not vote for him. Trump did not win the popular vote. It means majority of Americans do not subscribe to his views and did not want him to become president - hence the numerous anti-Trump protests in several cities and on campuses across the country following the election. The election of Trump offended the collective conscience of most Americans - many of whom took to the streets to express opposition. This, I think, is the only silver lining in what will go down in history as the most ridiculous U.S. presidential election campaign; a campaign that culminated in the election of the first most politically inexperienced, erratic, openly xenophobic, Islamophobic and sexist U.S presidential candidate who has never held public office or served in the military. The majority of Americans cannot be put into the basket of deplorables. Only a minority voted for Trump.

Only silver lining in US election of Donald J. Trump

The 2016 U.S presidential elections, which was literally a reality TV show, is now behind us but the result of the election is even more shocking than the rise to power of a reality TV star who defiled everything the United States of America supposedly stands for on his way to become the country's 45th president. During the campaign, his opponent described half of his supporters as "deplorables" -- racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it. Regardless, Trump got elected. But there's a silver lining: majority of Americans did not vote for him - which means majority of Americans are not deplorables. 

On June 16, 2015 Donald J. Trump introduced himself to the world by connecting Mexican immigrants with rape and drugs, and then promised mass deportation and a border wall. In another hugely controversial statement on December 7, 2015 he called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States...". The statement provoked dismay and claims of racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia.

Screenshot of The Telegraph
It is worth mentioning that long before the presidential campaign started, Trump (and his father) were sued by the Department of Justice for racial discrimination related to their housing business in Brooklyn. They were accused of "anti-black bias" in apartment rentals in the city. Trump Management Corporation was accused of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in its operation of 39 buildings. According to the New York Times the Justice Department contended that Trump Corporation had refused to rent or negotiate rentals because of race and colors, and required different rental terms and conditions because of race as well as misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available. Assistant Attorney General at the time, J. Stanley Pottingar, told the New Times that the Trump case was referred to the Justice Department by the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

On January 23, 2016 Trump boasted that support for his presidential bid would not lose supporters even if he shoots somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue. This came after he pondered the prospect of killing journalists. At a rally in South Carolina, Trump mocked a disabled reporter by mimicking the reporter's impaired movement. In fact Donald Trump controversies abound, including the scandal involving the so-called Trump University which many of its students who paid as much as $35,000, according to The Atlantic, described as a scam. In March 2016, during the presidential campaign, a New York appeals court ruled that a lawsuit which was filed in 2013 claiming that Donald Trump's now defunct Trump University defrauded consumers can go ahead. According to the lawsuit the Trump initiative bilked thousands of students collectively of $40 million.

The list of Trump lawsuits and controversies is long. His treatment women and his attitude toward them is worthy of an honorary mention. His "blood" comments about Megyn Kelly who pressed him on his misogynistic and sexist comments about women revealed his impudent attitude toward women. Then came the story of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, and how Donald Trump bullied and ridiculed her because of her looks and Latina background. Then came the 2005 video footage in which Trump brags about sexual assault against women. The video was followed by a catalog of sexual assault allegations by several women.

My Take  

First of all, it is unconscionable that Donald Trump got elected president of the United States. His zero administrative experience, his temperament, erratic tweeting - sometimes at 3 AM - and his long list of lawsuits and controversies related to discrimination, racism, xenophobia, sexism and sexual harassment allegations should have eliminated him. Hillary Clinton was right: many - if not half - of Donald J. Trump's supporters could be put into what she calls the "basket of deplorables." Hillary later apologized for the statement -- but she should not have. There should be no apologies for calling out bigotry. Chances are anyone who supports and votes for a bigot is bigoted or does not care about bigotry. Supporters of Donald Trump, including members of Ku Klux Klan voted for a candidate who during the campaign flirted with racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, you name it; they elected a candidate who used fear-mongering and appealed to the dark side of the electorate. In the wake of his election the KKK, which endorsed him in April 2016, announced a victory parade to celebrate victory. Bona fide racists rooted for, and continue to root for Trump. Deplorable.

Donald Trump did not only embolden old school racists like established members of the KKK. His campaign inspired a new generation of racists among young students in schools and campuses around the country which are grappling with hostilities against minorities following the election. For instance, students at York County School of Technology were recorded chanting "white power" while carrying a pro-Trump sign; a prayer room for Muslim students at New York University was defaced with the word "Trump!" the day after the election; students in Royal Oak Middle School can be heard chanting "build the wall! Build the wall! in the school cafeteria. Racists graffi and hate crimes linked to Trump's campaign message have also been reported after the election.

Some analysts and commentators have argued that not all Trump supporters are deplorable because some of them are "well-meaning" ordinary Americans worried about "the establishment" and the state of the economy. I disagree. Anyone who shuns social justice in favor of  a divisive candidate who promises to fix the economy could be safely put into the basket of deplorables. According to Fareed Zakaria, Donald Trump re-made the political map because of huge support from working class whites, and right wing populism is one the rise across a variety of western countries, including in countries with strong economic growth. Many Trump supporters - mostly white working class men - used the economy in this historic election to mask racism and xenophobia, and justify their desire to "make America white again" by building a wall, banning Muslims from entering the United States, deporting millions of immigrants, amongst other things.

The only good news following the shocking outcome of the 2016 U.S presidential election campaign is the popular vote. According to CBS news Hillary Clinton is on track to winning the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. Hours after she called Trump to concede she was winning the popular vote. It means majority of Americans cannot be put into the basket of deplorables - because majority of Americans did not vote for a deplorable candidate. Donald Trump got elected as a result of the Electoral College - a system he himself described in in a tweet in 2012 after America's first black president got re-elected as "a disaster for democracy" after America's first black president got re-elected; a system in which a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election. Trump condemned the system regardless of the fact that Barack Obama won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. That is how much he despised America's first black president.

When news broke that Donald J. Trump had been elected 45th U.S. president my fear was that he might have won the popular vote -- which would have meant that majority of the American electorate share his divisive views. I was relieved to an extent to learn that majority of Americans did not vote for him. Trump did not win the popular vote. It means majority of Americans do not subscribe to his views and did not want him to become president - hence the numerous anti-Trump protests in several cities and on campuses across the country following the election. The election of Trump offended the collective conscience of most Americans - many of whom took to the streets to express opposition. This, I think, is the only silver lining in what will go down in history as the most ridiculous U.S. presidential election campaign; a campaign that culminated in the election of the first most politically inexperienced, erratic, openly xenophobic, Islamophobic and sexist U.S presidential candidate who has never held public office or served in the military. The majority of Americans cannot be put into the basket of deplorables. Only a minority voted for Trump.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

MV-lehti: a Finnish anti-immigration irony

By definition, xenophobes are bigoted, prejudiced and often racist individuals who dislike immigrants or, in general, dislike people from other countries. It is therefore ironic to have someone who seemingly dislikes immigrants but is himself the son of an immigrant, currently lives in a foreign country and at the same time runs an anti-immigrant website from his adopted country. 

An anti-immigrant website has been on the news lately in Finland. According to Yle, the site, MV-lehti, was founded in 2014 and has been accused of racism, slander, conspiracy theories, copyright infringement and privacy violations in Finland. Yle reports that the website has gained a larger readership in Finland over the past year since the migrant crisis began in Europe after publishing incendiary, erroneous and abusive articles on immigration and other subjects. The website is reportedly known for also publishing, amongst other things, pictures of [foreign] crime suspects and convicted criminals in violation of Finland's privacy laws.

Screenshot of MV-lehti header
The website's founder, Ilja Janitskin, told Yle in an interview (in Finnish) that his father was born in Leningrad (known nowadays as St. Petersburg), Russia. His father migrated to Finland (from Russia) when he fell in love with a Finnish woman. The couple settled in Lieksa, eastern Finland, where they gave birth to and raised the founder of the anti-immigrant website MV-lehti. He tells Yle that he considers himself "100% Finnish." In the 2000s he emigrated to Miami, Florida where he lived for 2 years. He returned to Finland from Miami, and joined an organized criminal motorcycle club after being unable to find work. He then moved to Spain where he now lives in Barcelona where MV-lehti was founded.

Several youth and political orgainzations joined forces and launched a campaign against MV-lehti and another anti-immigrant website in an effort to cut off funds by targeting the websites' advertisers. The rationale of the campaign is that the websites in question agitate hatred towards minority groups in Finnish society hence companies should not benefit from that. The campaign against the sites was reportedly launched by the Social Democratic Students (SONK), and the organization's chair reportedly received death threats following the launch of the campaign.

A police investigation was launched on the request of Finland's Deputy Prosecutor General to determine whether or not charges should be pressed against the founder of MV-lehti. According to Yle police received dozens of complaints about the website, and launched an investigation on suspicion of copyright infringement, libel, aggravated defamation, fundraising crimes and gambling crimes. Helsinki district court rejected a petition by police to shut down the website. The site's founder was however remanded in custody in absentia. Police want to question him on suspicion of inciting hatred against an ethnic group and aggravated slander. He is also suspected of illegal threats, money laundering and gambling crimes, breaches of confidentiality and copyright crimes.  Yle reports that the suspect said he will not willingly give himself up for questioning and that he may consider seeking asylum in Spain to avoid Finnish authorities. He could face arrest and extradition to Finland since the Helsinki Appeals Court threw out an appeal against the remand order.

The suspect was detained in Spain following the decision by Finnish courts to remand him in custody. He was however released by Spanish authorities a few days later. 

My Take

I watched Yle's interview with Janitskin, titled "Janitskinin totuus??!!" Sitting on a sofa stroking a bunny, IIja Janitskin came across in the interview as defiant. But despite his best attempt to debunk claims that he is an immigrant himself, nothing can change the fact: he is an immigrant demonizing immigrants. Not only Somalis and Africans are immigrants. A Finn living in Spain is also an immigrant in Spain. It is that simple. Janitskin reportedly emigrated to Miami at one point and later to Spain. He is as immigrant as an immigrant can get. If he is not an immigrant in Spain no one living in a foreign country is - not even the Somalis bearing the brunt of racism in his hometown of Lieksa, which by the way has a unflattering reputation

It is ironic to see someone whose father was an immigrant and who is currently an immigrant himself running an anti-immigrant website against immigrants living in the country to which his father emigrated from his native Russia. And it is telling that Janitskin says he would seek asylum in Spain if need be. Someone radically opposed to immigrants and asylum seekers considering seeking asylum elsewhere. Paradoxical.

Mindful of the fact that his father was a Russian who migrated to Finland, Janitskin is of immigrant background by birth. To put it into perspective - president Barack Obama of the United States is of immigrant background. Obama was born in the United States to an American mother and a Kenyan father. Obama is 100% American in the same way Janitskin is, in his own words, "100% Finnish" - although some racist Finnish right-wing extremists, many of whom, I think, enjoy the content of website would argue - in private if not in public - that he is not 100% Finnish as he claims.

The first thing that stroke me while watching the Yle interview was that he felt the need to brand himself "100% Finnish." This led me to believe this might be someone struggling with identity crisis; someone who probably thinks he is more "Finnish" than others. It would be interesting to know what he thinks of a person who was, for example, born in Finland to a Tanzanian mother and a Finnish father. In other words, I would like to know whether  Janitskin also thinks someone born in Lieksa to a Somali father and a Finnish mother is also "100% Finnish." Drawing from the anti-multiculturalism and anti-migrant content on his MV-lehti website my guess is he probably does not think so.

Ilja Janitskin touched on freedom of expression in the Yle interview. According to him people have the right to write what they want. From a legal standpoint it is not true. There are justifiable legal limitations to freedom of expression in both national legislation and in international human rights conventions like the European Convention on Human Rights (article 10) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Janitskin claims he does not force anyone to read his thoughts or comments of his readers. This statement points to a common problem among people who spew and incite hate online: they are often quick to point to their rights while being oblivious to their duties and the rights of others. Everyone reserves the right to visit a website that is open to the public and the right to report to the authorities if they think a crime is being committed online. That is why Finnish police have the Net Tip or Nettivinkki section on its website through which internet users can submit non-emergency information to the police in relation to any suspicious material found online, including racist or hate crimes and discrimination.The publisher of an inflammatory website cannot ask people of good conscience to look away.

I welcome legal action against hate speech and incitement of hatred both online and offline, and I commend those who proactively take legal action against hate-mongering websites and against individuals that threaten public safety by inciting hatred against minority groups. It is unfortunate that the chair of SONK, Hanna Huumonen, received death threats for launching a campaign against MV-lehti and a related website. The death threats are an indication of the threat posed by such websites and the people who run them. People of goodwill fighting social ills should not be cowed by illegal threats designed to silence them and intended to create an environment conducive for racism to foster. 

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Far-right extremism claims life in Finland - time to pull the plug

For too long right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi organizations have had their way across Europe. They enjoy freedoms and liberties to organize, demonstrate, express themselves and terrorize opponents under the guise of civil and political rights -- rights that other extremist groups such as extremist groups that kill in the name of Islam do not enjoy. It's time to pull the plug on violent extremism in all its forms. Violent extreme-right organizations should be outlawed like all other extreme groups that claim lives through senseless acts of violence across the world. Political extremism should be painted with the same brush like religious extremism.

A 28-year-old man died in hospital in Finland one week after he was assaulted at a neo-Nazi demonstration in broad daylight in the heart of Helsinki. According to Helsingin Sanomat, the victim was assaulted in front of Helsinki Central Railway Station on Saturday 10 September. His father told Helsingin Sanomat that the attack took place at a demonstration organized by the Finnish Resistance Movement known in Finnish as Suomen vastarintaliike - an infamous neo-Nazi organization.  Police confirmed to Helsingin Sanomat that a man received strikes to the head in the city center but were initially tight-lipped about the case. However, details of the case quickly became clear.

According to Ilta-Sanomat the victim, Jimi Joonas Karttunen, died on Friday 16 September at 10 pm. His father made a police report on Monday. The grieving father told Ilta-Sanomat that his only son was pushed to the ground, hit his head and lost consciousness. He was taken to hospital in Töölö from where he was discharged on Thursday. He however suffered from cerebral hemorrhage the next day and was able to call emergency services before losing consciousness. Emergency services found him on the floor and took him to Meilahti hospital where he died. His father described him as an "international, open person" who was interested in skating and snowboarding. He was born in Sweden and they moved to Finland just ten years ago. Ilta-Sanomat reports that the Finnish Resistance Movement posted its own version of events that day on its website. According to an update on the movement's website, "an activist intervened in a situation and gave a quick crackdown" to a heckler. A video published by the movement shows a man lying on the ground next to a blood splotch.

Police detained a man born in 1990 in relation to the assault. According to Yle, the suspect turned himself in. He is suspected of assault and involuntary manslaughter. Another Yle report reveals that the suspected assailant has a violent background and is a founding member of the neo-Nazi Finnish Resistance Movement. Police confirmed the victim died of a head injury after being kicked.

The accused was remanded in custody on suspicion of involuntary manslaughter which carries a prison sentence of up to six years, according to Yle.

According to MTV News the accused has a heavy criminal record and history with the neo-Nazi Finnish Resistance Movement. For instance in 2010 he, together with a partner in crime, push over a man in Helsinki and kicked him in the face and body. In 2011 he tried to stop police from arresting another man by pushing and grabbing a police officer. In addition, he has previously been convicted of obstructing a public servant, smuggling, possession of a dangerous object and aggravated damage.

My Take

First and foremost, my thoughts are with the family and friends of Jimi Karttunen. The senseless violence that claimed his life is utterly despicable and unacceptable. Jimi Karttunen died apparently opposing neo-Nazism and racism. According to his friends he had strong opinions and was not afraid to express them, and human rights were important to him. For this reason, as a person who shares his values with regard to human rights, I pay him homage. I was one of the numerous people who visited the crime scene and lite a candle in his honor.

Reports say the 28-year-old met his end standing up neo-Nazi demonstrators. Police say the victim walked by a group of neo-Nazi demonstrators who gathered at Helsinki Central Railway Station, stopped by the demonstrators, exchanged words and was chased by one of the demonstrators as he walked away. He was kicked in the chest and hit his head when he fell to the ground. According to an eyewitness, the victim was hit on the chest by a flying kick and he did not have time to react. His father told Helsingin Sanomat that he went with his friends to express his views about the Finnish Resistance Movement.

Not many people have the courage to stand up for what they believe in and make their voices heard. Jimi, according to his father was not a member of an anti-racism organisation. However, the fact that he expressed opposition to neo-Nazism shows that he was an anti-racist at heart. For that, I salute him. Losing a loved one is a horrible experience but I hope Jimi's family takes some solace in the fact that his death brought the threat of neo-Nazism, a long-standing and overlooked problem in Finland, to the limelight. Hopefully, weeks, months or years from now Finland will look at the tragic passing of Jimi Kartunen as a defining moment in the fight against racism, neo-Nazism, far-right extremism and senseless political violence in the country. In this regard, Jimi would have literally left Finland a better place for all. There are already signs that things are moving in that direction.

The tragedy on 10 September literally ignited overdue public discourse about how to eradicate neo-Nazism, a social-ill that poses a real threat to human rights in Finland. A lot seems to have happened since then - geared towards stopping the madness. For instance, Minister of Finance and leader of the National Coalition Party, Petteri Orpo, told Yle that violent right-wing organisations should be banned. The minister said if ways to ban political organisations that use violence are found he would support the ban. According to the minister extreme right organisations are security threat and a ban on such organisations had already been discussed in government at the beginning of the year but legal scholars have had different opinions on how violent organizations could possibly be banned; nine legislators launched a bill to outlaw "organized racism".They will need another 91 MPs to back their legislative proposal but it's a good start; an anti-racism demonstration (Peli poikki!) was organized and scheduled to take place on Saturday 24 September 2015. According to Yle 9 000 people had indicated on Facebook by midday on Friday that they would participate in the demonstration billed to "break the silence" on racism. At the time of this writing the number stood at 10 000. Prime Minister Juha Sipilä will participate in a related demonstration against racism in Kuopio. Former president Tarja Halonen will be one of the speakers at the Peli poikki anti-racism demonstration in Helsinki.

The most important thing, I think, that has happened since the passing of Jimi Kartunen is the arrest and remand to custody of the alleged perpetrator. Police acted swiftly, which is absolutely commendable. If found guilty, the perpetrator should bear the full weight of the law. He should be slapped with the maximum penalty possible for such a heinous crime. Involuntary manslaughter, according to Yle, carries a prison sentence of up to six years. I would like to see the accused sentenced to six long years in prison. His colorful criminal record should make conviction easy. Given his record he poses a threat to public safety. He should be incarcerated for the maximum period of time the law allows. The sentence should not be suspended. He should spend the time behind bars.

As for the so-called Finnish Resistance Movement -- it is a violent organization. It glorified the attack on Jimi Kartunen on its website by boasting about it in a post that described the victim as a heckler who received a "quick crackdown". That is according to Ilta-Sanomat. The "crackdown" apparently led to the death of a 28-year-old man.

The death of Kartunen is not the first time the so-called Finnish Resistance Movement is involved in violence. In 2015, a demonstration organized by the movement went out of hand in Jyväskylä when members of the group entered a department store and assaulted bystanders. Three people were injured and thirty two people were arrested. Assault seems to be the group's preferred method of operation.

It is high time Finland pulls the plug on violent far-right extremism before it claims more lives. Legal restrictions on violent political groups -- restrictions designed to protect members of the public from organized violence and racism -- are necessary and proportionate in a democratic society in the interest of public safety, for the prevention of crime and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. A ban on violent groups is compatible with human rights. If a group commits or participates in acts of violence, prepares for violence or promotes, encourages and glorifies violence it should be banned. Terrorist groups are already banned for these reasons in many countries, and no one thinks a ban on such groups is in violation of human rights standards of free expression and assembly.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Wage discrimination by Nokia against foreigners in Finland

Public discourse about wage gap or wage discrimination in Finland is mostly gender-based -- but not only women are negatively affected by wage differentials between people doing the same kind of job for the same employer in Finland. Foreigners, or non-Finns, - men and women alike - are a vulnerable group susceptible to many forms of discrimination and unequal treatment, including wage discrimination.

Studies show that women are paid less on average than men in "virtually all labour markets", and the Finnish labour market -- where women receive wages that are some 15-30 percent less than men´s wages -- is no exception. Gender wage differentials may arise from labour market segregation or employers may simply pay lower wages to their female employees than their male employees for the same type of job (Korkeamäki, Ossi, Kyyrä and Tomi 2003). According to Korkeamäki et al (2003) such "within-job wage differentials" between men and women could be interpreted as wage discrimination against women. According to a Yle report, gender pay-gap in Finland is worse than in the rest of Europe.

It turns out that not only women are subjected to wage discrimination in the Finnish labour market. Foreigners are also susceptible. According to information reportedly obtained by Yle from a State Administrative Inspection Agency, foreign IT employees working for Nokia in Finland were paid much less than Finnish employees. Indian, Chinese and Polish IT employees who worked for Nokia between 2014-2015 were paid salaries as low as 750 euros a month - much less than Finnish employees. Yle reports that from the obtained documents foreign workers who worked in product development design earned 50-70 percent less than their Finnish counterparts.



Worthy to mention that according to the Union for Professional Engineers in Finland the salary for work done by the foreign workers discriminated against by Nokia should be at least 4000 euros a month. Compare that to the meager 750 euros a month that Nokia paid them.

According to Yle the issue of wage discrimination against foreigners in Nokia was exposed in a State Administrative Agency inspection, and Nokia received a warning from the agency regarding the matter of wage discrimination.

My view

First of all, a mere warning for wage discrimination by a multinational information and information technology company - or what remains of it - is grossly insufficient reprimand for such an illegal act in a country governed by the rule of law.

Wage discrimination against women in Finland is a serious problem worth discussing and seeking solutions - but not only women are affected by wage discrimination. Public discourse about wage discrimination in Finland should be expanded to included all vulnerable groups, including foreigners - who are not only affected by discriminatory employment practices but also discriminatory wage differential. Although women as a whole are adversely affected by wage discrimination it is possible that foreign women are paid even less than their Finnish counterparts for the same kind of work in the Finnish labour market.

The fact that foreign workers in Nokia were paid up to 50-70 percent less than their Finnish counterparts is alarming. And that is just Nokia. What transpires in other companies and workplaces and in other sectors can only be left to the imagination. If more inspections are carried out as intended by the Regional State Administrative Agency I believe there will be more shocking revelations that would damage Finland's reputation among countries that pride themselves as champions of equality.

According to Korkeamäki et al (2003), women in the Finnish labour market take home 15-30 percent less wages than men. According to Yle, studies show that women in the Nordic country earn on average 18 percent less than men. I reckon the average is higher among foreigners. This is not to say wage discrimination against women is not an important subject; it is to say that wage discrimination among other vulnerable minority groups like foreigners is equally important and worth looking into. After all, it has been said that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Selective outrage to cases of discrimination is in itself discriminatory.

It is unfortunate and unjust that Nokia seems to have, more or less, gotten away with such a scandalous violation of national and international human rights standards on equality and non-discrimination with a mere slap on the wrist in the form of a warning. Imagine a world where all offenders got away with warnings. A satisfactory consequence of such a blatant transgression, I think, would be reparation to victims - in addition to punitive measures. The near-silence on the matter by Finnish civil society and equality advocates - many of whom are usually vocal on matters of inequality, especially when it involves women - is telling. Perhaps the muted response by the Finnish public is because victims of the violation are foreigners. Perhaps Finnish society and the powers that be would have been more concerned and outraged if the affected workers were Finns - or women. Fortunately or unfortunately, Finnish workers were not adversely affected by the scandal -- they in fact earned 50-70 percent more than their foreign counterparts, according to Yle.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Brexit motivated by xenophobia

Britain goes to the polls on Thursday 23 June 2016 to decide in a referendum whether the UK should remain in the European Union (EU) or leave. Like in most elections across Europe these days, immigration is a huge question and there are campaigners and voters who think that without immigration - or free movement of people as in case of EU membership - all a country's problems would somehow disappear. There can not be further away from the truth.

The referendum question, according to The New York Times will ask eligible voters - British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens 18 and older living in the UK, UK citizens living abroad who have been registered to vote in the UK in the past 15 years  - whether the UK should "remain a member of the European Union" or "leave the European Union." According to the BBC there are three million EU citizens (excluding Britons) living in the UK, and immigration is one of the most important issues for EU referendum voters. Three million foreign EU citizens seems to be too much for Britain, but nine member states of the EU reportedly have higher proportions of foreign EU citizens than the UK.


An intense four-month campaign centered around questions on immigration, the economy and national sovereignty reached its climax with the assassination of Jo Cox, a British MP who campaigned for Britain to remain a member of the EU. Ms. Cox, 41, was reportedly killed after getting out of her car in Birstall where she was scheduled to hold a meeting with constituents.

The New Times reports that immigration - including worries that Turkey will join the E.U and expose Britain to a new wave of Muslim immigrants - and national identity have been central to the "occasionally bitter clashes over the referendum. Those campaigning for Britain to leave the EU also evoke economic concerns to make their case - although more than 1,280 business executives, including directors from 51 FTSE 100 companies reportedly signed a letter in the Times newspaper supporting the Remain camp. Companies on the list reportedly employ 1.75 million people. It is fair to mention that some business leaders like Sir James Dyson and one of the UK´s oldest firms, Tate & Lyle Sugars, support the Leave camp. But most economist believe, according to The New York Times, that Brexit would among other things "create havoc with the pound." Even people in the Leave camp like economist Andrew Lilico, the Executive Director of consulting firm Europe Economics, agree that leaving the EU would be detrimental to Britain's economy until around 2030.

My view

A mere look at the names of those who support the Leave camp tells me that xenophobia is the driving force behind Brexit. Names that have become synonymous with racism and xenophobia in Europe; names like Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and supporting from abroad - polarizing figures like Marine Le Penn, leaders of the French National Front - a party known for "its vituperative denunciation of migrants, its uncontrolled hostility towards Muslims, its xenophobic 'France for the French' message" - among other things.

Supporters of the Vote Leave campaign are not in good company.

Brexit appeals to nationalists - some of whom are far right extremists like Thomas Mair - the man who assassinated MP Jo Cox because of her political views - according to her husband. After the cold-blooded killing Thomas Mair gave his name in court as "death to traitors, freedom for Britain". That is the rhetoric of Brexit. Blind (and possibly deadly) nationalism. Supporters of the movement claim that as part of the EU, Britain is not free and anyone who opposes their push to leave the bloc is a "traitor".

Of course not all EU exit propagandists are extreme and xenophobic. Justice Secretary Michael Gove for instance distanced himself from UKIP´s xenophobic "Breaking Point" poster - a poster reminiscent of Nazi-style propaganda. Other decent politicians who are in bad company with the Vote Leave campaign include Boris Johnson, former mayor of London.

Britain is stronger in the EU despite the bloc's shortcomings. Staying in a reformed EU would be a smarter choice. A vote to leave the union would weaken the influence of UK in Europe and jeopardize the lives of numerous Britons living and working abroad thanks to the free movement rule in the EU. It would adversely affect the movement of money, people and products thereby affecting big business negatively. There is a reason why 55% of members of the British Chamber of Commerce favor staying in a reformed EU. According to Yle, Britons living and working in Finland for example are worried about the possibility of Britain leaving the EU due to the impact it would have on their work and residency. Majority of them oppose leaving the EU.

The way I see it, Britons living and working abroad have a broader worldview and understanding of the global impact of Brexit. Those at home have little or no clue about what it means to be a citizen of the EU. All they see is immigrants coming into Britain. They are oblivious to the fact that should Britain decide to leave there would be a new breed of "immigrants" in the form of British returnees from other EU countries, and British livelihood across the EU would be destroyed. "Free movement", one of the main principles of EU membership, is not a one-way rule. There are British citizens living and working in other European countries. And as indicated by those living and working in Finland - they would like Britain to remain in the EU.

Search this Blog

Related Posts with Thumbnails