One of the surprising matters about the debate on multiculturalism is how little we understand the basic terms. Take for instance the term multicultural. Does it only mean a society comprised physically of many (multi) cultures, or is it a policy that facilitates the participation of immigrants and ethnic minorities in a society?
Finland is not officially a multicultural society like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, but our laws shows multicultural sensibility (Constitution, Citizenship and Non-Discrimination Act) towards minorities.
What do people mean in Finland when we speak of “multicultural society?” Are we referring to a society comprised physically of many cultures and/or official policy through laws such as the Non-Discrimination Act?
I suspect that it is a bit of the both.
If we are still pretty much in the dark about what multiculturalism is and implies for Finland, how can we debate the issue effectively?
One of the reasons why some believe that multiculturalism is good for Finland is because there are so few immigrants in this country. It is a bit like being in favor of peace. Everyone will agree that peace is important but when the chips are down and war breaks out, some of us turn into Rambos.
Since multiculturalism (as a policy) has become a hypersensitive political issue during these difficult economic times, I believe that this moment is a better time than ever to discuss inequalities in our society: discrimination, exclusion and unemployment.
The recession in Finland has most likely hardened attitudes against the small immigrant community.
Is multiculturalism as a policy good for Finland?
Answering the question requires us to understand four phases: immigrants, recognition, acceptance and incorporation into society. We are probably entering the second phase (recognition) in Finland.
Even though integration in global markets is vital to Finland’s survival and success as a country, over 20% immigrant unemployment nationally reveals a lot about the role of these people in this country. How can society benefit from newcomers if exceptionally high unemployment continues to be an issue? How are our “multicultural sensible” policies promoting greater incorporation of some minorities in society?
Is multiculturalism good for Finland?
Probably the question should be turned around: Is Finland ready for multiculturalism?
Here is an interesting case: The biggest military and economic power in the world, the United States, continues to be hounded by one of its dubious legacies – racism. On the other side of the Atlantic, we too have a long way to go before we wipe the scourge of racism from our continent.
It is a positive matter, however, that in Finland the debate on racism and equality for all of its inhabitants has been taken up by parties on the traditional left and right of the political spectrum. Racism has no place in our society since it undermines our Western democratic values.
Former President Jimmy Carter, a civil and human rights champion, said this week that US Representative Joe Wilson’s outburst to President Barack Obama’s speech to Congress was based on racism.
“I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said in a story by AP at a town hall meeting held at his presidential center in Atlanta. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”
Wilson shouted from the aisles “you lie!” during Obama’s speech. He later apologized for the outbreak.
Carter, who is also a member of the Democratic Party, added: “Those kinds of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care. It’s deeper than that.”
It is always a healthy matter when new parties emerge and take part in the debate on immigrants in Finland. One of these is the so-called Joutsen puolue (Swan Party) being spearheaded by Jussi Halla-aho, who is presently standing trial for incitement of hatred against an ethnic group and defamation of a religion.
In order to find out what a party really thinks, try to see what they deny. This becomes clear in a post by Juha Mäki-Ketelä, who is spearheading the creation of the new party. Mäki-Ketelä was also recently on a television program with lawyer Hussein Muhammed.
Below are two comments by Mäki-Ketelä in Vihreä Lanka that caught my eye about the new party: (1) ..[it is] direct democracy and not a criticism of immigration (…se on nimenomaa suora demokratia eikä maahanmuuton kritiikki); (2) We do not oppose all immigration. We are only opposed to immigration that is harmful to Finland and Finns…(Emme vastusta kaikkea maahanmuuttoa. Vastustamme ainoastaan Suomelle ja suomalaisille haitallista maahanmuuttoa…).
Before commenting on the above, the formation of the Joutsen puoluen party exposes, in my opinion, the rifts in the populist right. We have the Perussuomalaiset, who are a bit shy officially about their views on immigration because they don’t want to see themselves as a “far-right party,” while the new party in formation claims the same thing but will be more “critical” about the issue.
I am a bit offended by the first affirmation. Mäki-Ketelä suggests that most Finns are so stupid that they do not even know that they are being taken for a ride by the big established parties. Freedom of speech, in their opinion, means a one-way street to insult and bash other religions and cultures wholesale in the name of “liberty.” Like a frenzied lynch mob, they will decide what is good for us.
The second phrase is a gem: “We are only opposed to immigration that is harmful to Finland and Finns.” What does that mean? Does he mean refugees or immigrants? What is “harmful.” Why doesn’t he specify? If they are not against immigration, why do they bring this issue over and over again?
The irony, however, of all this is that the Joutsen puolue will do their best to give you a totally different image of itself by mixing double-talk into their politics.
Even though every group has valid arguments in the debate on immigrants and refugees in Finland, we have to go a bit further and ask how do their actions undermine our sense of society and exclude others?
If we look at parties in the far right in Europe and new ones being created in Finland, it is clear that their aim is to fuel a narrow-minded agenda flavored with messianic overtones which could be pictured in the following manner: A man holding a knife at a person’s throat and asking him why he hasn’t learned enough Finnish?!
Those who are in university and write essays or are in the writing business know that there is one very big no-no: plagiarism, which means the close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author as one´s own.
Can plagiarism apply to culture; i.e. the incorporation of a culture´s customs and thoughts and representing them as one´s own? This is how cultures work: they constantly incorporate new ideas and customs from other ones without mentioning the source.
Why does cultural plagiarism occur? Probably because cultures want to give the impression to their countrymen and immigrants that their culture is unique. They are obliged to strengthen a myth called national identity.
How many things of our culture have we incorporated from other cultures? I think the answer lies in our physiology: we have some different traits but we can still reproduce and forge a new generation.
Even though culture is not music or artwork with a copyright label, it is misleading and outright wrong to steal a custom from another culture and claim it as your own — are simply avoid the topic altogether.
If we stated sourcing where our different cultural traits came from, would that be the first important step in building a world of greater understanding?
If we knew how closely we are actually linked possibly that would help destroy some of the walls we build thanks to cultural plagiarism.
Posted by Enrique 
Posted by Enrique 
Posted by Enrique 
