Finland's courts crack down on hate speech and inciting hatred

Hate speech is a problem in Finland like in many other countries in Europe plagued by a surge in far-right populism, racism, xenophobia and what could be aptly termed narrow-mindedness. Victims of hate speech in Finland are commonly the "usual suspects" - immigrants, Roma and Muslims. It is worth highlighting that a poll commissioned by Helsingin Sanomat revealed that minority groups mostly affected by racism in Finland are Somalis, Muslims and the Roma. Hate speech is used by both ordinary citizens and controversial politicians who make a name for themselves by bashing ethnic, religious or national minority groups. The surge in racism and incitement of hate online prompted some officials in Finland to urge politicians to stop using hate speech to win votes. Eva Biaudet, Ombudsman for Minorities, for instance said the law should come down more heavily on hate speech. Recently, courts in Finland have sent a loud and clear message that hate speech is not protected by freedom of speech. On 8 June 2012, Finland's Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Member of Parliament (MP), Jussi Halla-aho, for hate speech, in relation to statements he made on his blog about Somali immigrants and Islam.

The Supreme Court ordered Jussi Halla-aho, MP for the controversial "True" Finns party, to pay a fine for anti-Islamic blog posts published in 2008. The court increased the sentence of the lower court by ordering the convict to pay a higher fine and to delete certain writings from his blog. In the blog posts in question, Halla-aho reportedly likened Islam to pedophilia and said Somalis are genetically predisposed to stealing and living off welfare.

The High Court ruling comes less than two months after a court in north Karelia sentenced six people for online racism and incitement of hate against an ethnic group. The six people were sentenced in relation to comments they posted on a Facebook group that featured threats and insults against immigrants.

Such verdicts represent victories for the fight against hate speech.

Courts in Finland understand that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, as per Article 10 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, "carries with it duties and responsibilities" and "may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society... ."

As stated in the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression could be legally restricted to protect the rights and reputation of others.

Unfortunately, a good number of people, including some "experts" in European politics, politicians and political bloggers, are unaware of the fact that expressions that incite hate are not protected by freedom of expression in Europe. Some have wrongly suggested that the conviction of Jussi Halla-aho, a politician who is famous for wrong reasons, represents war on free speech. Such an assertion is a misguided attempt to embolden proponents of hate speech and individuals who incite hate against minorities.

Those who intentionally or unintentionally confuse hate speech with free speech and attempt to defend expressions that incite hate are prone to use hate speech against vulnerable individuals or groups.

Free speech is not hate speech. The difference between the two concepts cannot be overemphasized.

A defiant Jussi Halla-aho reportedly dismissed the ruling of Finland's Supreme Court as "the personal interpretation of a few people." This goes to show that the MP despises the highest court of the country he seeks to "safe" from immigrants and multiculturalism. He says he will not resign as chairman of parliament's Administration Committee, a body which deals with immigration policy. It is unclear how a person with anti-immigration sentiments could work without bias on immigration issues. Calls for Halla-aho to resign from his post as chairman of parliament's Administrative Committee are well-grounded. He plans to challenge his conviction at the European Court of Human Rights -  an institution that knows too well, like Finland's Supreme Court, that freedom of expression does not cover hate speech and inciting hatred against minority groups.

*Photo of Jussi Halla-aho: YLE.

Share

Tweet

Michel Platini threatens victims of racism in football

Over the past couple of days, I have been shocked, appalled and outraged by a couple of things, including a misguided statement by Michel Platini, president of Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) - organizer of Euro 2012 co-hosted by Poland and Ukraine. Following the release of a disturbing video report about anti-semitism and racism in stadiums in Poland and Ukraine, Mario Balotelli, a revered and at the same time controversial football striker said he would walk off the pitch if racially abused at Euro 2012. Although I did not welcome Balotelli's threat to "kill" anyone who racially abused him, I was impressed by, and welcomed his threat to walk off the pitch in protest if racially abused by racist football fans in Poland and Ukraine. But unfortunately not everyone supports players who would walk off the pitch in protest. Rarely do officials threaten to punish victims of crimes and abuse, but Michel Platini did just that when he said football players who walk off the pitch at Euro 2012 due to racial abuse will be booked.

Apparently, Michel Platini is more interested in protecting the reputation of the game than protecting and standing in solidarity with players like Mario Balotelli who are more often than not subjected to racism in the so-called "beautiful game." Listening to Platini's interview on BBC Sport, I was stroke by his "protect the game" rhetoric. The interview reveals that he is more concerned about protecting the game (his source of income) than protecting victims of racism and abuse. Players walking off the pitch in protest are - from Platini's viewpoint - bad for business.

Giving referees power to stop matches in cases where players are racially abused is not enough. Fighting racism should not be left at the discretion of referees alone. Referees have had power to take action against racism by stopping game for a number of years. [Source], but this has not solved the problem.

Players have the right to protest and they should be allowed, without fear of retribution, to walk off the field of play after being racially abused - especially when referees, stewards and police prove to be incapable or unwilling to handle the situation. Such protests would force officials like Michel Platini with vested financial interests in the game to take racism in football more seriously and take more stringent action against the social ill that damages the game and negatively impacts lives.

It is objectionable to force players to play in an environment where they feel uncomfortable, threatened and violated. Victims of racial abuse should not to issued yellow or red cards. The assertion by Michel Platini that any players who walk off the pitch at Euro 2012 due to racial abuse will be booked is misguided.

This is not the first time that a football official has downplayed the impact of racism. In 2011, Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA said football does not have a problem with racism on the field and that on-pitch racism can be solved with handshake.

UEFA has tried to combat racism, but the organization has clearly not done enough. It should not resort to forcing victims to stay on the pitch. Players should have the liberty to walk off the pitch when they feel uncomfortable and racially abused. They should not be further victimized by officials who have a duty to protect them from racist predators.

Share

Tweet

Intisar Sharif Abdallah: Woman sentenced to death by stoning in Sudan

The Republic of the Sudan, sometimes called North Sudan is famous for wrong reasons. Its President, Omar al-Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. The president remains a fugitive of international law and continues to use "genocidal language" against his country's new neighbors - citizens of South Sudan. In 2010, a video showing a woman flogged in public in Sudan put the spotlight on medieval forms of punishment sanctioned by Sudanese law. More recently, the story of Intisar Sharif Abdallah, a young mother sentenced to death by stoning over charges of adultery, has once again highlighted the sorry-state of human rights in the Republic of Sudan - under the leadership of Omar al-Bashir.

Intisar Sharif Abdallah, mother of three, was found guilty of adultery by the Criminal Court of Ombada, Khartoum state, Sudan and sentenced to death by stoning. She admitted the charges after being beaten by her brother and was reportedly tried without legal representation by a lawyer. She initially pleaded not guilty but later changed her plea under duress.

The man held with her for adultery was released while she was detained with her 4-month-old baby. This highlights discrimination against women - many of whom suffer persecution while their male counterparts in similar or the same situations walk free.

According to Amnesty International, the young Sudanese mother was sentenced on 13 May 2012. [Source].

The handling of the case of Intisar Sharif Abdallah is incompartible with international law in many ways. Her right to a fair trial was violated. She was denied access to a lawyer and interpreter, and was convicted based on testimony obtained under duress. She is being detained with a baby - in violation of Article 37 (b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Sudan is party. She was tried while the man held with her was released - in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Above all, stoning amounts to torture and violates key international standards, including the Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which Sudan signed on 4 June 1986.

It goes without saying that Intisar Sharif Abdallah should not be executed. Her trial was deeply flawed and contravened international human rights standards.

Amnesty International is calling on human rights supporters to sign a petition to stop the execution of Intisar Sharif Abdallah. I signed the petition on the website of Amnesty International Finland (in Finnish). The petition is available in English on the website of Amnesty International Ireland. You're encouraged to sign it. Together we can stop this medieval form of punishment.

Share

Tweet