The video in question was filmed at a cursing evening, where the Member of Parliament was invited to curse. Hell yes, there’s swearing there. I don’t rate Diarra very highly in Finnish politics, but that swearing scandal is as stupid as it gets.
It’s better to swear at a cursing evening than, for example, outside a bar with a weapon or on a plane defying an order to leave.
You seem to have missed the content entirely there, the point was about the €8000 and why one always has to play the racist card if one has acted wrongly, it’s somehow peculiar that it’s assumed if you say the magic word “racist” you get absolution and in fact everything is turned into the white person’s fault.
Ok, well… nice. 
Foul language is the only thing you brought up in the previous comment.
Probably because one is unwilling/unable to understand the blameworthiness of their own actions. Much in the same way as a Member of Parliament who recently caused a disturbance while drunk on a plane felt that his actions were interfered with only because his political home is with the Finns Party.
As I stated in my previous comment, I don’t value Diarra very highly in politics. The ‘self-interest first’ mentality has always been present. Some remember, for example, how, as a political decision-maker but under the guise of a social media influencer, she begged Helkama for a free electric bicycle.
The most ardent opponents of income inequality have considered high marginal tax rates to be fully justified. There is reportedly no evidence of harmfulness. Here is one more study that confirms my own view
Soon someone will say that the researchers are biased, from the wrong institution, or otherwise incompetent.
Other members of parliament have also visited there at Taiwan’s expense without similar news coverage
That’s probably true, but I have lived in / visited many countries, and nowhere has “dropping by for a visit” been such a big deal.
In many countries, it’s still normal to go ring a friend’s doorbell without warning if you’re passing by; here, impromptu visits are mostly successful only among cottage neighbors.
Are you kidding? Almost weekly, we read in the media how cars seemingly drive themselves into crowds in Europe, with information hidden at the end of the news that it was once again an asylum seeker. In the case of the Swedish shooter, every media outlet published a clear facial image of the perpetrator on their front pages when the perpetrator turned out to be a white native Swede. We see very few pictures of these terrorists. The media has entirely created this situation where alternative media is gaining immense support. It’s then easy to slip real disinformation in among it. Even in the recently published Finnish sexual offense statistics, there was no discussion in the media, even though the results are truly appalling.
That context of Vance’s speech in Munich probably related more to Europe’s current values, how understandably they don’t really get everyone’s support and not everyone sees them as worth defending anymore. There were indeed absurd examples.
In practice, current Europeans will be a small minority in their own countries within 50 years. Our own culture has been pushed to the margins. In practice, most of Finland’s new debt is explained by immigration costs. The price tag for immigration is about 10 billion every year. What do we get in return for this? Many feel that the upside is non-existent, but conversely, the risks are enormous. No wonder many hesitate to have children. A cheaper alternative for the state would be to pay even an increased child benefit of 200,000 euros. The message from teachers is apparently largely the same: those with immigrant backgrounds have been quite overrepresented in these school violence and disturbance situations. This, combined with excessively large class sizes, will collapse Finland’s learning outcomes, and I am willing to bet any amount on this.
This will further divide nations in the future, which other countries will then exploit through their own internet opinion-influencing. One could guess, based on a gut feeling, that no matter which side one belongs to, more and more people no longer see their own country as defensible as before.
It was already mentioned in the stated purpose during the enactment phase of the citizens’ initiative that the aim of this form of influence is to introduce new topics into political discussion.
And isn’t it true that the law amendment concerning on-call services, approved late last year, is only just coming into force? In the government proposal for the law on citizens’ initiatives, it was, however, stated that an initiative can only concern amending or repealing an existing law, or enacting a new law.
Therefore, repealing legislation that is about to come into force does not fall within the scope of the right to a citizens’ initiative.
Even if the necessary signatures were gathered, the chances of success for said citizens’ initiative are pretty much exactly zero percent.
I checked the matter. You are correct in that the prohibition of night-time on-call services in certain hospitals has not yet come into force.
If you have read the citizens’ initiative (and hopefully also signed it😊), you will notice that the initiative fits perfectly with the current healthcare law, meaning it can be processed as an addition to existing legislation.
Since the citizens’ initiative can be interpreted as amending the current healthcare law, the chances of success for said initiative are pretty much less than 95%.
EDIT:
Admin edit:
JuhaR and Remmiinajo agreed that these couple of messages would be moved here. 
Have a nice weekend and we’ll get back to this on Monday! t.admin
EDIT 2: Oops, both messages ended up in the wrong thread, back in the correct requested place. Need to learn how to open a thread. t. admin again
France is leading, but where is Finland? Did we get silver?
What could be the reason that society cannot put a stop to such ‘model citizens’? I believe there is an unusually strong consensus among citizens that with such a CV, one should not be free, but the opposite happened:
Åkerlund, who shot three men execution-style at the drive-thru of Porvoo McDonald’s in the summer of 2010, will be released from prison on July 1st. By then, he will have fully served his 15-year prison sentence for three manslaughters and a firearms offense.
Even before the Porvoo drive-thru killings, Esa Åkerlund had been sentenced in 1997 to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife, as well as, among other things, two attempted manslaughters, aggravated assault, and unlawful deprivation of liberty. He committed the drive-thru killings just half a year after being released on conditional parole from his life sentence.
Is such an entity, repeatedly and seriously violating societal rules, merely a 'force of nature’™ that one simply cannot do anything about and must just tolerate (a couple of other similar 'forces of nature’™ come to mind, but let’s not go there now)? Doesn’t it really occur to any official/parliamentarian reading Ilta-Sanomat that something probably needs to be done?
Yes. Unfortunately. Here in the Tampere region, there has been good luck lately regarding how karma has avenged these most hardened criminals. Monday’s news:
Still, I have to admit that sometimes I also have some understanding, though not approval, for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes. A few months ago, this happened:
The target there was a person who had an unpleasant habit of, for example, occupying people’s homes with threats and violence and spending their life making other people’s lives hell. Completely random and unknown passers-by in the city also got their share. Even though every hardened criminal is someone’s child and blah blah blah, I wonder if anyone actually missed them.
Nowadays, people are so damn messed up and prisons are such rest homes that some kind of reform would be needed in this country. Both in terms of helpful and obligatory matters. And of course, regarding the consequences of crimes.
The current government is at least now trying a bit to toughen some punishments, even though there hasn’t been much talk about this; perhaps there’s a fear in the media that support could improve. Bureaucrats are on a slightly different line, which is interesting, as one might imagine that the job of bureaucrats is not to tell their opinions to the media, as they are not elected, but to implement the government’s policy.
We have MPs who quite publicly say that breaking the law is right if it promotes their own agenda. When the same people also glue themselves to the street and consider human rights completely inviolable, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the situation to rectify itself.
Murderers and rapists usually commit a new crime quite soon after being released and get to serve time again, so this one won’t fundamentally enjoy their freedom for long either. It’s just a shame that someone will most likely either die or at least be seriously injured as a result of this.
True:
And the real spike of convicted criminals we have is in the Finns Party. You’re probably referring to those, aren’t you?
In the Nordic countries, there is a prevailing idea that prisoners are rehabilitated into socially functional individuals, which is why sentences are quite lenient and prisons aim to rehabilitate people. In my opinion, an effective measure against such serial offenders would be to take a cue from Asian countries where hardened criminals are no longer given the opportunity to commit crimes.
Prison conditions and punishments are an interesting topic. On the one hand, there are studies (which I haven’t read myself) suggesting that light sentences and the reintegration of prisoners into normal society have yielded good results. These results, to my understanding, come from the Nordic countries and seemingly from the late 20th century, but they might have been conducted later, I don’t know. These have probably been a fairly generally accepted guideline in Finland too, and I, for one, have considered them quite sensible. This is further supported by results from the US, to my understanding, which indicate that when punishments are made harsher, crimes become more brutal, because serious criminals find it worthwhile to start killing potential witnesses, etc.
Societal experiments are always difficult because one cannot test them in laboratory conditions or go back in time to see what would have happened if a different choice had been made. Then, in the Philippines, Duterte took an extremely tough stance, and to my understanding, El Salvador adopted a similar approach a few years ago. According to the Nordic model, this should have led, to my understanding, to worse criminality and more brutal crimes, but instead, it appears that societies in both places have become safer.
How should this be interpreted? I believe, without better information, that criminality and criminals are not a homogeneous group. Perhaps in the Nordic countries, due to a relatively functional society, crime has been concentrated on milder offenses, and in this context, reintegration has worked. However, for hardened gang criminals, etc., this approach is a complete disaster, and to my understanding, serious crime is disproportionately concentrated among a very small group, so that, for example, the vast majority of murders, homicides, robberies, etc., are committed by a truly small group. Based on the examples of the Philippines and El Salvador, it seems that if this small group is put behind bars with a heavy hand, the outcome is good?
How then should one balance these approaches, for example, in Finland? Should a big distinction be made between the treatment of “hardened” criminals and, say, first-time offenders? Who defines what a “hardened” criminal is? In the US, some states have apparently sought this type of approach by imposing life sentences for a third offense. This too has had its own problems, but that’s probably the case in all situations, and in my opinion, in such matters, the benefit of society takes precedence over the self-interest of criminals, but this is indeed a difficult dilemma and mostly just speculation.
Prison conditions don’t have to mean that sentences are served in some dirt pit. It can mean perfectly orderly living conditions, but with stricter daily discipline. “Less PlayStation, more work and study” is unlikely to be a formula that would hinder integration into society.
Expenses could also be curbed somewhat by outsourcing some prison-related tasks to the prisoners themselves. For example, there’s no need to order food services from some Leijona Catering. If even in elementary school you have to eat slop made by friends in home economics classes, then this must also be possible in prison conditions. And having such work done as internal prison labor is, in turn, apt to improve everyday skills.
Regarding punishments, our sentencing scales are fundamentally quite good. The problem is that in the real world, actual sentences are rarely close to the upper end of the sentencing range. They are not in court judgments, and even less so in actual punishments served.
When the Costa del Sol murder was referred to earlier, some people surely believe that the conviction should have been for murder instead of manslaughter. But since the court settled on manslaughter, a 12-year sentence certainly corresponds in its main features to the sense of justice of a large part of the population. Instead, it is hard to believe that the general sense of justice of the people can accept that a young serial offender serves 4 years of a 12-year sentence, after which he can continue his criminal career already during probationary release.
I also believe that good behavior should not reduce the sentence served. Instead, bad behavior should extend it. Likewise, “quantity discounts” should not be given for crimes; the logic should be exactly the opposite. Nor should young age, in the case of an adult, be a reason to cut the punishment served to a fraction of that imposed by the court.
I also believe that even if we don’t send 12-year-olds to prison, the criminal age of responsibility should be lowered, and community service should then be used as the primary sanction.
Similarly, I believe that even a petty thief, for example, a beer shoplifter, should face real sanctions for their actions. When fines cannot be collected from anywhere, one can carelessly tear up the fine notices in front of the police and move on to the next “gig”. If fines for repeat offenders were enforceable from social benefits, crimes would have a concrete consequence, and getting caught would at least have some deterrent effect.
In my opinion, it would be a good start if the Helsinki Court of Appeal would give at least some weight to these extensive dangerousness assessments that are conducted for life prisoners and the worst violent criminals.
Quite a few murders/homicides committed after a life sentence would have been prevented, and fewer people would be serving a second life sentence.
Norway has an effective prisoner rehabilitation system, but they certainly don’t release someone like Breivik. Finland is capable of the same, and without even changing the law. It’s completely pointless to release some incurable violent psychopath from a life sentence into probationary release.
Pardons should be granted to those who are at least slightly more fit for society than at the beginning of their sentence.
What one learns young, one masters old. Helsinki’s most active quartet of robbers consists of 13-14-year-old snot-noses:
The TOP10 list also includes one active 12-year-old youngster. Of course, in that sense, a weak performance, as a year earlier, a guy of the same age took first place in the district championship.
“Whereas an adult criminal is apprehended and, if the conditions are met, sent to prison, a young person is released. This way, the robberies can continue, and it is more difficult for the police to intervene.”