I haven’t followed this case at all, but on a general level, an internship position can have very different priorities, so the most experienced person isn’t always the best choice. For example, if the goal is to increase staff numbers or it’s known that someone will soon retire, or there’s just so much turnover that it’s known someone permanent or a longer-term temporary employee will need to be recruited in the autumn/end of the year, then it’s worth taking an intern who is as ready as possible and can then be hired immediately if they prove competent. Sometimes the situation is the opposite: there’s a fairly high certainty that there won won’t be open positions in the autumn, but an intern is still needed for the following summer, and there’s a desire to maintain continuity anyway. In such cases, it’s worth taking someone in the early stages of their studies, because they are likely to return the following summer, and then there’s no need to go through the same onboarding hassle. In other words, the can can be kicked down the road when the near future looks uncertain.
I have no idea if this was the situation with Stubb’s son. Just a general observation.
The prosecutor is bringing charges of defamation based on a criminal complaint filed by Speaker of Parliament Jussi Halla-aho (Finns Party).
In autumn 2023, Halla-aho filed a criminal complaint against Tuominen and Kivi because they had used the English term “fascist” (fasisti) about Halla-aho in a message thread on the X messaging service.
The saga continues! This time, it will be debated in court whether “fascist” is a forbidden word or not. Next, similar definitions will undoubtedly be sought for the words “communist” and “republican”.
The wheels of justice in a rule of law state operate smoothly. Some, even in the parliament, are proudly communists. Republicans, I suppose, are quite accepted.
You can make things look so different depending on which part of the news you quote. So, Ilkka Kivi has said the following:
"– He is also a fascist and supports [Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor ] Orbán. When he led the Finns Party, the party’s politicians openly supported [Russian President Vladimir ] Putin after he had occupied Crimea. So, he’s not really that great, Kivi wrote."
And this tweet specifically referred to the Speaker of the Parliament, who had just given a speech to Ukrainians and received a standing ovation from them.
In my opinion, these defamation cases go too far and consume a vast amount of taxpayers’ money when legal action is taken over every little remark. But if we go down this path, then let’s play by the rules of the elite and litigate everything. This case is likely a fairly clear case of defamation, considering all the things that have been litigated over the years.
It’s only been about three years since a quite similar case came before the Supreme Court, where Johanna Vehkoo called Junes Lokka a racist and a Nazi clown. In that case, it was concluded that no defamation had occurred because the criticism ultimately targeted Lokka’s politics – albeit with quite offensive words. Finnish law specifically states that criticism directed at a person’s conduct in politics, public office, or similar public activities is not considered defamation.
Unlike the Lokka-Vehkoo case, the Halla-aho case does differ in that the fascist allegations in question were made on a public forum, not in a restricted group as Vehkoo commented. But otherwise, as a layperson, I don’t see a very big difference between the cases.
Halla-aho is, in addition, the Speaker of the Parliament, who is second only to the president in Finland’s official hierarchy of values, so in that role, he should tolerate even harsher criticism than local politician Lokka.
You mentioned that “when playing by the rules of the elite,” everything is litigated. Are there many examples where, for instance, members of the Finns Party have been sued for defamation? Defamation is a crime subject to private prosecution, which the police do not investigate unless the aggrieved party files a criminal complaint.
Halla-aho stated in 2020: “I live with being called a Nazi, racist, and fascist. I am not going to file criminal charges over them, even though they are completely inappropriate characterizations.”
A year and a half ago, the view was: “It is good to get a ruling from the police, prosecutor, or court on whether it is appropriate to call a person legally active in politics a ‘fascist’.”
Halla-aho has the right to file a criminal complaint about the matter, but it certainly makes his broad understanding of freedom of speech and his claims about how he personally reacts to being called names seem ridiculous.
The judiciary will make its decision regarding Halla-aho. However, it will not provide an answer to whether it is appropriate to call a person legally active in politics a fascist. Legally, all sorts of fascists, communists, and eco-hippies operate in politics. Some of those Finns Party members even operate legally.
Earlier on Wednesday it was reported that Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen (National Coalition Party) has decided to propose the termination of Maja-Luoto’s position.
Didn’t this go quite right, even according to the critics? A complaint was made to the ministry → Minister Heidi handled the matter up to the termination without major drama.
When flirting with killing, should it be done artistically?
Helen has quite bad taste, I’d say, when one can express oneself on its graffiti wall at a rather questionable level.
Apparently, a utility company managed by Helsinki politicians offers a platform for boundary-pushing art.
It’s a shame you can’t choose your utility company, but you can always go and create your desired ‘dead or alive’ style art on the company’s physical ‘site’.
Perhaps it’s refreshing; a boomer just doesn’t understand the opportunity a public enterprise offers for art resembling hate speech.
Graffiti | Helen does not intend to remove graffiti referring to killing ministers from its wall
The reform being prepared is based on the EU’s so-called Pay Transparency Directive, which was approved during the previous government. The directive must be implemented nationally by June next year at the latest.
The Finns Party has so far halted the progress of the reform, and therefore the government has not yet submitted a proposal on the matter.
Well, well! The Finns Party is doing exactly the right kind of politics and surprisingly independently. The opposition to the proposal is justified by the desire to keep the reins in the hands of labor market organizations so that the market economy can function in working life. Absolutely the right view!
It seems that the implementation method of the directive is indeed worthy of a Finns Party protest.
It’s somewhat crazy that some state official’s office would estimate the realization of pay equality according to the defined four criteria. What I myself have now come to prove is that an individual’s capability significantly affects:
-the quantity of work output
-the quality of work output
… Even if one were within exactly the same team in a similar role, with exactly the same formal qualifications, years of experience, similar responsibilities, and working conditions. The experience of the burden of performing the same work being different, as is the burden in life in general.
The concern is primarily directed at the draft proposal’s section, according to which employers should pay the same salary for the same or equivalent work. Equivalent work would be defined by four criteria. These would be competence, workload, amount of responsibility, and working conditions.
In the opinion of the Finns Party, salaries should be determined based on collective agreements and the supply and demand of the labor market, not based on criteria added to the law.
The Finns Party also recoils from the idea that employers should report on their remuneration to officials hired by the Ombudsman for Equality’s office. In the party, the plan is called “equality-stasi”. According to the draft proposal, violations of these obligations could result in fines.
Oh boy, if only I could get this job! What kind of education would get you into such a protected job? Just more useless jobs for the state. That’s how this country will rise.
It’s a wonder that skin color and who one sleeps with in their free time weren’t among those criteria. I eagerly await how state officials, from some ivory tower, will know better how people do their jobs in their workplaces.
According to Purra, positive signs have also been seen in the cost development of wellbeing services counties. According to the Ministry of Finance’s calculations, the government has increased the supply of employed persons by 90,000, but due to the weak economic situation, people have not found jobs as desired.
Doesn’t the Ministry of Finance state here that the government has increased unemployment by 90k, but it’s the economic situation’s fault that they can’t find jobs? The matter is expressed in a remarkably creative way👍
That’s an achievement too, I guess, but few would boast about something like that.
Socialism, which Finns are thoroughly fed up with, appears in the ‘Real Estate Investing’ thread, where people discuss how to avoid paying nursing home bills. It is generally considered completely normal that a millionaire’s care costs are paid by taxpayers. Without blaming any individual commenter, I merely state that this is what it has come to. Our society is sick, truly sick - and recovery can only begin when the facts are acknowledged.
The socialism beloved by Finns is also reflected in the fact that an elderly person who has ended up in a nursing home can lose 85% of their net income to care costs if their own apartment or cottage were rented out.
-And even more, if their property includes forest, a notional income is calculated from it, even if there were no wood available for sale from the forest.
There could be some fairness, so that one wouldn’t have to puzzle over how to avoid such taxation.
I myself have considered, in a nursing home situation, for example, an advance directive, where property - that is, acquired with one’s own net money, and from which hefty taxes have been paid over the years - is converted into a form that would not so much generate net income, but would partly accumulate, partly as a gift to children.
It’s good that people are considering reasonableness…
The thread discussed the benefits of renting out an apartment, for example, regarding those care costs.
The thread also included discussions such as: “I even made calculations for the rest of the family that if we had sold the apartment and invested the money in a global fund, the inheritance would have been up to 30% more (with the expected remaining lifespan). Well, the funds performed even better during that time, and correspondingly, apartment prices fell. But we couldn’t agree with my siblings on the sale then. And some non-dividend-paying fund, therefore, because then no income is generated, meaning the nursing home can’t take a cut again.”
Of course, such thinking can be moralized, but at the same time, one can also ask how fair it is to treat rental income from an apartment and a growth fund so differently when determining care fees.
Everyone can now define what is socialism and what is capitalism, but I do see a problem if income differences accumulated during working age are too heavily leveled out in old age. A low-wage worker’s occupational pension vs. a guaranteed pension for someone who has never worked. The care costs and differences in disposable income between someone who has regularly invested throughout their career and someone who has lived a wild life. And so on.
The net income during the nursing home phase, let alone its use, no longer holds much significance for me, at least. If by then I haven’t managed my finances optimally, then let them be used for my care to the extent that regulations require it. I don’t demand any special arrangements, and nowadays they can’t even be bought with money.
At that stage, I no longer need those funds for anything at all. Of course, a potential estate will surely see the situation differently.
It may well be that the regulation will be revised in the coming years, as the clientele of nursing homes is constantly getting older and wealthier. As at the same time awareness of “hiding” money increases, the rules will surely change, at least belatedly. I myself consider a complete shift to private care more likely, and in the absence of assets, for example, care paid by Kela (Social Insurance Institution of Finland).
And regarding your forest example, everyone I know nowadays makes arrangements in time for forest partnerships or similar arrangements.
Of course, any of us could end up in an institution for the rest of our lives, incapable of making any decisions, even in five minutes, so how do you prepare for the future then…
