New Year’s Eve sexual assaults in Finland, too
Helsinki has had some problems much like Cologne’s, but not quite as widespread:
Asylum seekers who met in central Helsinki to celebrate New Years’s Eve “had similar plans” to commit sexual assault and other crimes as those who targeted women in the Germany city of Cologne, Finnish Police have reported.
Three Iraqi asylum seekers have been arrested for committing sexual assaults during the celebrations in the city’s Senate Square, where some 20,000 had gathered.
Security personnel reported “widespead sexual harrassment” during the celebrations, police added, with women complaining that asylum seekers had groped their breasts and kissed them without permission.
“This phenomenon is new in Finnish sexual crime history,” Ilkka Koskimaki, the deputy chief of police in Helsinki, told the Telegraph. ”We have never before had this kind of sexual harrassment happening at New Year’s Eve.”
It seems that Western Europe has been such a relatively pacific place post-WWII that it has contributed to a truly extraordinary naivete about the differences between their culture and the people they’ve been letting recently in under the guise of compassion for the needy and the afflicted. It’s hard to believe that anyone who follows the news, or anyone who has read about the treatment of women in most Middle Eastern Muslim countries, could be ignorant of the difference between a place like Finland and a place like Iraq. But I believe that many people are—or at least they were—ignorant.
My guess is that the magical words “asylum” and/or “refugee” (combined with decades of PC propaganda) helped the European natives see the newcomers as peaceful supplicants, coming only in order to take shelter from the storm. No doubt there are such people, and it’s highly possible they’re in the majority, but there also should have been little doubt that in addition there would be a significant number of aggressive people out to cause trouble and to take advantage of their hosts, and who would have a very predatory attitude towards women in western culture.
It may be that the only reason things weren’t worse in Helsinki on New Year’s was because authorities were tipped off:
He said that the police had received tip-offs from staff at the asylum reception centres.
“Our information from these reception centres were that disturbances or other crimes would happen in the city centre. We were prepared for fights and sexual harrassment and thefts.”
He said that police had established a “very massive presence” to control the estimated 1,000 Iraqi asylum seekers who had gathered in the tunnels surrounding the central railway station by 11pm, many of whom appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Mr Koskimaki said that sexual assults in parks and on the streets had been unknown in Finland before a record 32,000 asylum seekers arrived in 2015, making the 14 cases last year “big news in the city”.
It all reminds me of this:
Protest in Ké¶ln. Frank Zappa had it years ago.
There was a time a few hundred years ago when Europeans were a brutal lot well able to kill enemies who meant them harm. There are still elite military units who can sort out bad guys with great efficiency, but the average European male has little stomach for violence. Maybe the soccer hooligans and skin heads will save the day.
Islam is not compatible with the West.
Never has been.
Never will be.
ISIS has been redefining what terrorism is, especially with its loose structure and savvy communication via social media. I’m thinking that these mobs were (at least one of) the planned New Year’s Eve attacks they had announced.
We shouldn’t be stuck in our notions that terrorism = dramatic mass killing event in this day and age of daily random stabbings in Israel and the mass immigration (hiraj?) to Europe where refugees gloat that in 20 years they will have taken over Europe without a battle, simply via much higher birth rates. These seemingly planned mass robbing/sexually assault of NYE celebrants was to put the fear in the locals that they are not safe to wander out after dark, especially women.
Cornhead: ‘”Islam is not compatible with the West.”
Not unless they give up the Salafi/Wahhabi interpretation. That would require a reformation, which at this time is unlikely except at the point of a gun.
Congress needs to define what a constitutionally protected religion is such that Islam is excluded from constitutional protection. That would prevent their being given a pass as they plot to overthrow our government and replace it with Sharia. The Constitution should not be a suicide pact.
Woe be to Europe. They have allowed the termites into the building that will eat out the foundation of their civilization. Will they wake up and apply the necessary actions to save themselves? We hope they do, but I’m not optimistic at all.
“Congress needs to define what a constitutionally protected religion is . . . ”
No matter what follows that ellipsis, would we all not be better off to pause and consider the extent to which we’re made safer arrogating to Congress — of all the intellectually bankrupt institutions in our lives — what is and is not the definition of so confused a subject as “religion”? And this, even apart from the prima facie problem of interpretation arising from within the confines of the First Amendment of the Constitution?
Neo:
“It seems that Western Europe has been such a relatively pacific place post-WWII that it has contributed to a truly extraordinary naivete about the differences between their culture and the people they’ve been letting recently in under the guise of compassion for the needy and the afflicted.”
Of course, there was immigration post-WW2. But it was measured immigration that was compassionate as permitted under the needs of the nation. It was the sort of measured immigration favored by liberals until the Left decimated, subjugated, and replaced liberals with an at best parasitical form that deceptively labels itself “liberal” while corrupting liberal works. The current leftist policy is not the liberal policy.
JJ
Congress will not define religion. Too risky.
But invoking the authority of Allah was a brilliant part of Mohammed’s power grab. Not just a regular warlord, but a warlord with God’s backing.
Finland has the same problems from the same sources with the same army… Each of the countries suffers the same collapsing birth rate, the lowering of morals, the corrupting of the politicians, multiculturalism, Islamic importation, emasculated males, etc.
The ladies fought for change in government against the men who here as with other places find it easier to realize outside is not friendly. its the same cultural Marxism through feminism process in each, with minor variations.
the ladies neutered the men so they stopped standing up for them, as that is patriarchal and oppressive. the men are confused, the ladies are on their own. As with each other country that adopts these ideas, the birth rates collapse, and eventually, there is not enough young people to maintain tax rates, businesses, and so on ahead in the future as government projections indicate. with a 1.8 there is a fast decline over time, so the only solution is the same solution the others try
they start importing people, and do it too fast, and so lose selection, and all the other things. the point is that they all have a demographic emergency. in the US, minority children have surpassed and will be majority minority when they grow up. most are not thinking what that would be like if the importation had not been done!!!
this fast change then requires the pushing of things like multicultural ideals so that people are accepted with love, posters, and flowers… like a hippy commune fair, buying the world a coke. the discussion of whether this is good is supressed by the women and such calling for hate speech laws.
these laws exist now in finland, and spotty in the USA, definitely in england, sweden, france, germany. there is no way to discuss the problem because even that may be enough to get you in trouble. fjordman has been writing about it for over 10 years or so, since before obama was in office.
with the language surpressed and economic welfare candy, invitations to come, and in all these countries the state is favoring the new nation through demographic games. after all, with a 1.8 birth rate, or lower if you look at specific groups, the old ones are out and pretty much exterminated
groups below replacement do not generally reverse. when they have to fund the replacements, have lots of laws put on them so they are stressed, religion is eroded, women put off children and dislike their mates (who find them less appealing due to what they think), and it wont pop back unless some stuff changes… (some places want to pay people to have kids, even japan is contemplating importing people)
This open border, homogenization, and importing replacements from high birth (non/low feminist) places turns out to have a problem as they are not compatible with the kinds of states that practice behaviors that lead to self extermination and low birth rates. they also see that because this can happen, their way of living is best because they are just moving in and invited too.
this prevents them from assimilating. why should they assimilate and adopt those things like promiscuity, high disease, lack of social connection, low births, abandonment of religion, dissociation of family, promotion of perversion as liberation, and so on.
if it wasnt for those things and the drastic drop in survivability as a country/tribe they would not even be there or be able to be imported!!!
Most people are not realizing that the mass drop in birth rate is basically a sign that the group is not capable of surviving… its dying out while wallowing in plenty
what can finland and the others do?
for a population to live and be static, for every woman that does not have a child, another has to have 5 children. 2.5 children per woman on average is needed, given we used to do more than that, which made up for the barren, and so forth. but now we don’t, and where we do is in demographic areas, while other groups are dying out.
the riots are the result of this process and the influx taking advantage of this situation.
Artfldgrs: Right on.
The corollary of the socio-cultural decay of Europe is economically and politically equaled by the abrogation of European nationhood, the adoption of the Euro, the ECB and the EEU, the borderless de facto destruction of nations, which cannot reproduce or colonize or wage war or devalue their currencies. Poland and Hungary are trying, against massive opposition.
National emasculation. Run in large part by women, of whom Merkel is only the most prominent.
I think raping the women is about the worst move they can make. Not only does it turn most women into enemies, not only does it silence radical leftist feminists allies out of embarassment, but it also stirs the male primal nature.
When Finland’s women give their men license to kill (not to mention “rewards”), do you think it will take them long to spring into action?
Artfldgr and Frog:
I don’t have time to find them again, but I read in several articles (particularly in the British press, I think) of males in the crowd protecting or fighting back.
Three of the things that made this difficult, I think, were that (a) the attackers tended to pick on groups of women without men and so most men were not aware that it was even happening (b) the attacks were so quick, a sort of “grope and then melt into the crowd” thing, that it would have been hard to find the perp or perps again; and (c) the perps also often worked in groups, and unless those fighting back were somehow in groups, too, they might ordinarily be way outnumbered.
However, there are groups who are taking it on—they might be the skinhead types; hard to tell (from the article linked in my post):
Well, until people start feeling more secure, people ARE going to be carrying out street patrols.
Islam calls for theocracy that is intolerant of all other forms of government. One thing that has been at the heart of the West’s governments and cultures since the 1800s has been the separation of church and state, which is the exact opposite of theocracy. Additionally, the West has been willing and able to stand up against governments that have been aggressive against our democracies. The problem we have now is that so few people, especially the progs among us, recognize that we up against an intolerant, theocratic body (not really a government yet, but a loose confederation of like minded theocrats intent on a world-wide Caliphate) unlike anything the West has faced before. Their agents in this country are hiding behind the protections of the First Amendment. Until we find a way to remove those protections, they will continue to harass, confuse, attack, and eat away at our freedom and way of life.
Look where we’re at right now. All airliners are threatened and we accept it – putting the TSA out as a defense. We are told to be alert and report something that doesn’t look right. Yet we are impeded by the fear of being Islamophobic. We have to be searched before we go into sporting events as a defensive measure. Our police, soldiers, military families, and large gatherings are all targets of terrorists. And we accept that as the way it is. Without a resounding victory over the terrorists, the defensive measures will never end. Our lives have been made worse and more dangerous by a bunch of rageaholics operating under the banner of a theocratic plan to end our way of life. And we take half measures. We no longer have the confidence or manhood to defend our way of life and freedom. I, for one, am fed up.
J. Madison, 20 June 1785: A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
In response to sdferr at 1:21
The founders like J Madison were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment philosophy of John Locke. I’ve mentioned John Locke’s philosophical and moral argument for freedom of religion in the past and also the flip side of his argument which is that freedom of religion is not unlimited and that a religion can be legal;y and morally suppressed when it advocates against the “public good”.
“By this we see what difference there is between the church and the commonwealth. Whatsoever is lawful in the commonwealth, cannot be prohibited by the magistrate in the church. Whatsoever is permitted unto any of his subjects for their ordinary use, neither can nor ought to be forbidden by him to any sect of people for their religious uses. If any man may lawfully take bread or wine, either sitting or kneeling, in his own house, the law ought not to abridge him of the same liberty in his religious worship; though in the church the use of bread and wine be very different, and be there applied to the mysteries of faith, and rites of divine worship. But those things that are prejudicial to the commonwealth of a people in their ordinary use, and are therefore forbidden by laws, those things ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. Only [35] the magistrate ought always to be very careful that he do not misuse his authority, to the oppression of any church under pretence of public good.”
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/764#Locke_0128-05_58
“Again: That church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate, which is constituted upon such a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country, and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own government. ”
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/764#Locke_0128-05_76
“But to come to particulars. I say, First, No opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society, are to be tolerated by the magistrate. But of those indeed examples in any church are rare.”
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/764#Locke_0128-05_74
“These therefore, and the like, who attribute unto the faithful, religious, and orthodox, that is, in plain terms, unto themselves, any peculiar privilege or power above other mortals, in civil concernments; or who, upon pretence of religion, do challenge any manner of authority over such as are not associated with them in their ecclesiastical communion; I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may, and are ready upon any occasion to seize the government, and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow-subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrates so long, until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?”
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/764#Locke_0128-05_75
“Again: That church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate, which is constituted upon such a bottom, that all those who enter into it, do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country, and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the court and the church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute [47] authority of the same person; who has not only power to persuade the members of his church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or as in order thereunto; but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a mahometan only in religion, but in every thing else a faithful subject to a christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the mufti of Constantinople; who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman emperor, and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this mahometan living amongst christians, would yet more apparently renounce their government, if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his church, who is the supreme magistrate in the state.”
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/764#Locke_0128-05_76
Notice that John Locke specifically mentions the “mahometan” (Muslim) as a religion which does not necessarily deserve protection since they often give their primary allegiance to the “mufti of Constantinople.” In other words, a nation which values religious freedom and tolerance is under no obligation to tolerate Islam.
The real problem in our country is not our constitution but the left who have taken it upon themselves to use the government to actively suppress the public expression of Christianity contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States. Their rational for the campaign being waged against Christianity is based on principles of militant secularism which promotes a ideology called laicite which was enacted into French law in 1905.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9
Not unless they give up the Salafi/Wahhabi interpretation.
You know that Islam has been doing the same thing since Mohammed, right, and that a caliphate isn’t a theocracy either.
It won’t matter if they give up the Salafi/Wahhabi interpretation, not at this point.
John Locke was a highly respected English political philosopher (with stress on political) indeed, though by misfortune of early birth not among those sons of English immigrants participating in the shaping of the American compact. Would he alone be aware of the existence of the religion of Muslims? Or, were Madison and his fellow framers also aware of that? And if aware of that, and capable of making such a distinction, then why did those framers and Congressmen debating the first ten Amendments to the Constitution not make explicit that exception in their writing of the First Amendment? What, were they forgetful? Or were they idiots, who did not know how to reason toward a universal as opposed to a particular? Hmmm. What might that have been which caused those framers to write so open-ended a pair of clauses as “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, when they may have simply written two closed clauses thus: “no law respecting an establishment of religion (especially not the Mahometan), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (except for the Mahometan)”? So as to say — **Any others, they’re all ok with us, even to include the practice of none at all — Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Animism, atheism, and even future religions we might anticipate to come but can have no knowledge of today or what have you — but not this one: this one, Islam, is right out.** Come now, must we be ridiculous now in order to make up for their inability to know how to be ridiculous then?
Why not, in the alternative, consider the founders’ and framers’ actual universalizing basis of right(s) in politics: nature? Y’know, the thing which has got lost thanks to the assiduous work of its various opponents, the historicists, the socialists, Marxists, and so on, who seem to prefer its annihilation as a principle of political order?
All is proceeding — so far — as Tom Kratman has suggested in Caliphate.
http://www.amazon.com/Caliphate-Tom-Kratman/product-reviews/1439133425
In the Broadway version of “Camelot,” a group of very bad boys mourn the social changes that have occurred since the Round Table was established:
“Lechery and vice have been arrested, arrested
Not a maiden is evermore in threat
Virgins may wander unmolested, unmolested
Lolly lo let, gad, it’s a sweat”
What too many Americans fail to understand (and perhaps even more Europeans) is that this situation is not automatic, is not “normal,” that it might be created by the mythical Round Table and by certain real cultures and governments, but is not self-maintaining and is easily lost.
sdferr: “Why not, in the alternative, consider the founders’ and framers’ actual universalizing basis of right(s) in politics: nature? Y’know, the thing which has got lost thanks to the assiduous work of its various opponents, the historicists, the socialists, Marxists, and so on, who seem to prefer its annihilation as a principle of political order?”
Call me dense, but I don’t see what you’re driving at here. Plain, straight-line, black and white reasoning would be helpful.
At the time of the writing of the Constitution there were few, maybe none, among the framers who saw Islam as a potential existential problem. Their experience of religious belief was primarily centered on Christianity and all its many sects, many of which had been persecuted by the state when the church and state were united in purpose. For those men, some 237 years ago, to have anticipated a world shrunken by jet travel and the mixing of nations’ populations that we have today, would have been near impossible. What they did know is that combining religion and state led to persecution and loss of freedom. That combining of religion and state is exactly what fundamental Islam represents. It is, at it’s core, unconstitutional. Unless that is openly recognized, we will continue to be at a disadvantage in dealing with this existential threat. That’s the black and white of it.
Again I wonder at what is proposed: that the founders and framers of America’s political order were so backward that their reasoning on that political order must be insufficient to our circumstances today — this, by the way, is the essence of historicism as such. For that account, we may look to Hegel. Those founders and framers however, were not historicists. They adopted what is known as modern natural right theory for the basis of the political order they built. The foundation, they understood, is human nature. That comes from a long line of thinkers, to sketch: beginning with Machiavelli, then followed prominently by Thomas Hobbes, from whom John Locke adopted (with non-trivial modifications) his own scheme of government. Is this simply black and white? No, surely not. But on the other hand, it does have the appearance of genealogical verity or faithfulness to it.
And too, we’re aware of Jefferson’s mentions to Henry Lee many years later (1825), apart from “the harmonizing sentiments of the day”, those other influences upon his draft of the Declaration “Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &”. “Et cetera,” we take it, to indicate that this is not an exhaustive list.
In response to sdferr at 10:33 AM
The framers of the US constitution did not invent the ideals found in the constitution ex nihilo. Their ideas were the culmination of a long history of theological and philosophical thinkers who had proceeded them. Probably the most influential philosopher who made the most direct contribution to the US constitution is John Locke. I thought that his influence on the constitution was common knowledge.
“The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. This idea deeply influenced Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence.””
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2.asp
Hobbes and Locke are often considered extremely influential theorists who had a profound impact on the Framers of our government. How did their theories influence the Framers? How influential are they in American thought today? Respond to at least two of your classmates’ postings. Be sure to properly cite your sources using APA style.
John Locke was one of the most influential English philosophers of the Enlightenment Period. His views on liberty, the social contract, rights of the individual, and liberalism transcended time and geography and, in fact, became the very basis of thought for the framers of the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence. His ideas also had tremendous influence on the Continental Philosophers of the time, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, and more. In many ways, his views were the very bridge between the Renaissance and the modern world, in that he viewed humans in a non-Cartesian and completely Biblical manner as blank slates, tabula rasa, born good without innate ideas but a predisposition towards self-actualization (Cassier, 1968).
Locke is often contrasted with Thomas Hobbes, a contemporary who viewed society in a far different manner. However, both men looked at the contemporaneous situations around them, but came to varying conclusions. When Thomas Hobbes described the life of man in wartime as “nasty, brutish, and short,” he was speaking more about the manner in which the majority of the population lived in 16th and 17th century Europe. Life was quite different during this time for 90% of the populace; there was a small merchant/middle class, an even smaller aristocratic class, and a large peasant and poor class (“The Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes,” n.d.). In many ways, then, the views of the framers of the Constitution were of the belief that Locke was more correct in his assumptions about humanity than Hobbes.
In politics, Locke’s view of the social contract and natural rights was central to the way he viewed the progress of mankind. The idea of natural rights is quite ancient, having ground in the Greek and Roman philosophers. These rights, also called moral rights, are essentially the thought that everyone is born with certain rights that should be expressed, regardless of the law or circumstances of their birth. Natural rights are universal, not limited to one time period or country, and are thus quite debatable and often contingent upon the interpretation of those who exercise the greatest power within that particular society – even though this is against the basis of natural rights itself (Magee, 2001). Thus, as early as the Greek stoics, rights were being used to debate the idea of slavery, and as the philosophers of the Enlightenment began to reexamine the rights of kings, they found that humans clearly have certain needs and means to express their own actualization- natural rights, or as John Locke indicated, the right to, “life, liberty, and property” (Tuck, 1982).
http://www.ukessays.co.uk/essays/history/how-their-theories-influence-the-framers.php
I have been to Helsinki many times over the years and have a lot of friends there. Going back in March.
The Finns aren’t naive, they’re generally the type who give the benefit of the doubt until you prove to them otherwise. They’re team players when it comes to social responsibility – meaning if the rest of the EU is on board, they will bear whatever they signed up for without a complaint. But they’re a very different culture from the Swedes, who once ruled them, and they’re used to having a belligerent bunch of Russians next door, and have defended themselves pretty well over the years. My guess is they won’t make the same mistake again. I’ve never gotten the sense they are inclined to political correctness for the sake of it.