Is Female Genital Mutilation a Lesser Crime Than Rape?

The Finnish police have launched the first preliminary investigations into the genital mutilation of girls taking place within well-known immigrant communities. Hopefully, the cases will be clarified and those responsible will be punished.

According to a news report on the matter, a person guilty of mutilating girls’ genitals — that is, so-called circumcision — may be sentenced to imprisonment ranging from one to ten years. In other words, the scale is quite broad.

For my part, I would hope that the courts eventually handling the first cases will be up to their task and refrain from applying the lowest penalties on the scale. I justify this by noting that, according to the law, even basic-form rape must result in a custodial sentence of at least one year — and surely no reasonable person can consider the permanent damage of a woman’s genitals to be a lesser act than their forced use?

It is therefore also necessary to question the reasoning of lawmakers — that is, ministers and members of parliament — who have implicitly written into law the view that causing permanent bodily harm would be equivalent to causing temporary harm. This despite the fact that rape also has lasting and serious psychological consequences — but does not mutilation, which is considered particularly brutal violence, have many times more such consequences? And does the fact that it is typically inflicted on girls of growing age not make circumcision even more condemnable?

If I were a lawmaker myself, I would have started the penalty scale for mutilation from where it ends for ordinary rapes. I would also have added to the law the deportation of the parent or parents who decided on the mutilation, if they are not native Finns. After all, the intentional damage of genital organs is an act that demonstrates complete disregard for the values and legislation of Finnish society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?
Finnish Society Adopts Medieval Characteristics
A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women

EU Carbon Sink Policy Lacks Cost-Effectiveness

Norwegian researchers Maarit Kallio and Elias Garvik published a study on the carbon sink policy of the EU and Norway (hereafter Europe), in which achieving forest sink targets would require an immediate and steep reduction in roundwood harvesting in Europe. This reduction could amount to 113–117 million cubic meters in the years 2030–2035 compared to a market-driven scenario, meaning that the costs of emission reductions would rise to more than €700 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

According to the researchers, this would simultaneously result in roughly two-thirds of Europe’s reduction in harvesting being offset by increased tree felling elsewhere in the world, particularly in North America, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia and Chile. In other words, restricting forest harvesting would ultimately lead to a massive transfer of income from Europe to the rest of the world without delivering significant climate benefits.

In addition, the researchers found that although harvesting restrictions would increase forest carbon sinks, their overall impact on the climate would remain limited because the climate benefits of wood products would simultaneously be lost. At the same time, economic activity in our continent would decline and significant income transfers to outside Europe would occur.

Thus, the cost per tonne of emissions saved—due to the economic burden placed on Europeans—would be many times higher than the prices used in the European Emissions Trading System.

This simply means that, in its current form, Europe’s carbon sink policy is not a cost-effective mitigation measure compared to other available options. Europe should therefore promptly abandon its current—naïve and ineffective—carbon sink policy, as it is simply irrational.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU Needs Innovations That Drive Climate Neutrality
Misleading Claims About European Forests
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Tuoreen tutkimuksen mukaan EU:n hiilinielupolitiikka on järjetöntä

UN Congratulates an Executioner – Credibility in Free Fall

As we all know, Iran’s Islamist regime brutally killed thousands of protesters at the end of last year and at the beginning of this year. In addition, it has financed and supported terrorist organizations operating in the Middle East, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which in turn have killed civilians in Israel. Nor should the regime’s role in forcing Iranian women into compulsory veiling—and the daily suffering caused by it—be underestimated.

All of this has not prevented Iran from being a member of the United Nations. Nor did it prevent UN Secretary-General António Guterres from sending a congratulatory letter to the Iranian government yesterday, on the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution. In his letter, the Secretary-General congratulated Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian by name.

In his message, Guterres also described the day as an opportunity to reflect on the country’s path, role, and contribution to the international community, and invited Iranians to global cooperation to promote peace and security and to defend human rights—thus demonstrating a complete inability to act as the leader of the world organization.

Of course, António Guterres has previously shown himself to be unfit, but congratulating a terrorist regime that has just executed its own citizens en masse is downright disgraceful. At the same time, it strips the UN of the last remnants of its credibility as an actor in world politics.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Venezuela, Antonio Guterres and the Nature of Great Powers
The Cost of the East Jerusalem Attack for Palestinians — and Its Echo Worldwide
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
YK:n pääsihteeri onnitteli Iraniin islamistihallintoa

When Free Speech Is Prosecuted: Päivi Räsänen’s Case Explained for Americans

In Finland, a big uproar has arisen over Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen’s (Christian Democrat) brief visit to the U.S. Congress, where she spoke about the attempts to restrict her freedom of speech. For this reason, it is worth reflecting on what happened in this blog as well. So let us start from the beginning.

It all began when Päivi Räsänen happened to write the words “a disorder of psychosexual development,” by which she meant a person’s sexual orientation toward their own sex. The Finnish prosecution service seized on this, interpreting the words as incitement against a group of people.

However, it is a biological fact that the sexuality of organisms has evolved precisely so that their genes can mix, that is, recombine, in their offspring. For this reason, sexuality is naturally directed toward the opposite sex, although behaviors related to one’s own sex are also common in nature.

In this sense, homosexuality—especially as the primary mode of sexual behavior—is indeed a kind of developmental disorder. However, that does not make a person better or worse than others, nor has Räsänen claimed so.

* * *

I do not know whether what I have written above has been understood in the district court and the court of appeal, but in any case it is right that they acquitted Räsänen of the charges. It seems clear, however, that the prosecutor has not understood the matter any better either before bringing the charges or after the court decisions, but is continuing the process to the Supreme Court while also continuing to violate Räsänen’s freedom of speech.

Thus, Päivi Räsänen and Finland have undoubtedly gained a bad international reputation among people who consider freedom of speech to be an important value. Such people are found especially in the United States, but of course also elsewhere, including Finland.

* * *

The case in question actually resembles a situation in which a woman living in a violent relationship goes public to tell about her husband’s actions, after which his relatives criticize her for sullying the honor of her family and spouse. In this analogy, “violent relationship” = “demands to ban freedom of speech,” “woman” = “Räsänen,” “man” = “the prosecutor,” “relatives” = “the media criticizing Räsänen.”

I do not believe that any reasonable person would think, in the above analogy, that the woman is the one sullying anyone’s honor. Nevertheless, the Finnish journalistic community has no difficulty accusing Räsänen of damaging our country’s reputation when she speaks in the United States about the continued attempts to restrict her freedom of speech.

I can only guess at the reasons for this, but I suspect that it has to do with a wokist worldview that has taken root in our journalistic community, which prevents our journalists from logical thinking, especially when a Christian worldview and a value-liberal worldview are in opposition. This view of mine is supported, among other things, by recent research findings.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Predictions Based on the Opinion Polls in the UK
Jesuit Morality in Crime Reporting on Immigrants
On Freedom, Debate, and the Murder of Charlie Kirk

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Onko Päivi Räsänen Suomen maineen likaaja?