Politics in Brigitte Bardot’s Obituary on Finland’s Public Broadcaster Yle

Good manners dictate that one should not speak negatively of the dead, but rather remember them by highlighting positive aspects. Unfortunately, the journalist Heikki Heiskanen, who prepared the item on the death of French actress Brigitte Bardot for yesterday’s main news broadcast of Finland’s public broadcaster Yle, did not understand this.

In his brief obituary, he quickly went through the things for which the deceased is remembered. In that context, he said—word for word—that “Bardot, who drifted to the political far right, caused scandals with her harsh statements about Muslims, immigration, and sexual and gender minorities, but that side is not being remembered in France today…”

I do not mean that Bardot’s positions and views, or the reactions they provoked, should not have been mentioned. Rather, I note that this should have been done while respecting the deceased, or at least neutrally, and not—as was now the case—at the very least tactlessly and by pushing one’s own opinions.

I say this because the journalist, through the words “far right”, “harsh”, and “scandal,” created a negative frame of reference for the deceased’s views, and thus sought to stigmatize Bardot’s positions—views that are justified and that year after year are gaining increasing support among Europeans.

* * *

The damage has of course already been done, but for future reference I urge Heiskanen and other media journalists to read the Wikipedia article written on the subject before drafting an obituary. It states that an obituary “gives a general overview of a person’s life stages and seeks to place in proper proportion the person’s significance in the field or fields in which they carried out their most important life’s work. Obituaries are usually written in a respectful tone.”

An example of such an obituary can be found in Uutissuomalainen’s article on Bardot’s death, which stated—on the same topics I have addressed—factually and with respect for the deceased that “over the years, Bardot made statements in which she criticized France’s immigration policy and opposed the Muslim tradition of ritual slaughter.” It was also noted that one of Bardot’s spouses was a former adviser to the National Front party, which led to suspicions that she supported the party, even though the deceased had said that she had never belonged to any political party.

This matter would of course have no significance otherwise than as a demonstration of Yle’s and its journalist’s lack of respect, were it not for the fact that the company’s operations are funded by the entire population. For this reason, especially the kind of promotion of a journalist’s own political stance seen in Heiskanen’s obituary amounted to nothing less than grossly inappropriate trampling on the grave of the deceased.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Deep Roots of Violence and Disregard for Human Dignity in History
Ego at the Altar
Impact of Diversity in Films

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Ylen toimittaja tyrkytti mielipiteitään Brigitte Bardot´n nekrologissa

Finally, Honest Reporting on Immigration and Crime

Finnish media usually mislead Finns when reporting crimes involving people of foreign background by failing to mention that the perpetrators are immigrants. That’s why it was gratifying to see that Uutissuomalainen published this morning a crime report written in a very factual and professional manner. According to the article, “In downtown Jyväskylä, a group of about ten young people of foreign background followed the underage victim in order to rob them.”

By factual, I mean that the reader doesn’t have to guess whether the issue at hand stems from a failure in upbringing or in immigration policy. Instead, it becomes clear that the political responsibility for what happened lies with those parties and politicians who have been steering Finland down the same path as Sweden.

Toward the end of the article, it is also mentioned that the authorities have a good understanding of who belongs to this group of about ten immigrants, who have also committed other similar crimes. Therefore, the problems they cause are likely to be dealt with in the near future. Helping in this effort is the fact that – according to Detective Inspector Eeva-Maria Tahvanainen – “The Police Department of Inner Finland now has an entirely new unit focused on combating street crime, which will take charge of cases related to such offenses.”

I would like to thank the people of Inner Finland for this initiative and, sitting here contentedly behind my keyboard, wish the Central Finland Police the best of luck and success in pursuing violent criminals! I also wish that Finland’s ministers and members of parliament would recognize the facts and use common sense when making immigration policy decisions.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle Using Taxpayer Money to Mislead?
Terrorism Landscape in the EU Contradicts the Narrative Presented by EU Politicians and Media
Finland’s Minister of Finance Believes Not All Cultures Are Equally Good

Border Residents Concerned Over NATO’s Article 5 Interpretation

According to a Polish news site, U.S. President Donald Trump intends to make a six-point proposal to Russian leader Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. Under this plan, the first step would be to agree on a ceasefire, after which Russia would be allowed to keep the territories it has seized from Ukraine for at least the next 49 years.

Once the ceasefire had taken effect, the U.S. government would remove most of the sanctions imposed on Russia and, after some time, once again permit the export of Russian oil and gas. In return for these concessions, Trump is also expected to present demands to Putin.

The first of these would require Russia to accept the further enlargement of NATO beyond its current membership. In addition, military aid to Ukraine would continue.

The claims made by the Polish news site have not been confirmed by other sources, but neither have they been denied. Therefore, for the time being, they should be taken seriously.

* * *

As a citizen of a country bordering Russia, Trump’s plan concerns me, as it would result in Vladimir Putin being rewarded for his aggression against Ukraine. In other words, it would support his policy that any geographical areas once under Russian control should belong forever to Moscow’s sphere of influence.

In Europe, this particularly concerns Finland and the Baltic states, all of which have at some point in their history been part of Russia (or the Soviet Union). In Finland’s case, this was from 1809 to 1917, when my homeland formed an autonomous grand duchy ruled by the Russian tsar.

The fear, then, is that once Russia has recovered from the war in Ukraine, Putin or his successor might decide to see whether the West — and especially the U.S. — would also be willing to accept possible conquests from a future military campaign against a NATO country. That is, for example, the subjugation of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania to Moscow’s power, either partially or entirely.

In this matter, the key question becomes NATO’s commitment to defending the sovereignty of its northeastern members. The central issue here is how to interpret Article 5 of the treaty, which states that "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

What especially concerns me here is the interpretation of the above-emphasized word “necessary.” Does it mean that the amount of assistance is to be calibrated so that the aggressor is certain to be defeated? Or can it also be interpreted — as the Polish news site claims is now happening in Ukraine (which is not a NATO member) — to mean that, as a war drags on, hostilities could be ended in such a way that the conqueror gets to keep the territories it has occupied?

For this reason, I believe it would be good for NATO and its member states — especially the United States — to clarify this interpretation and reassure those of us who live next to Russia that aggression against NATO member states would under no circumstances be allowed to result in rewarding the aggressor — as in the case of the war in Ukraine — but that NATO would, in every case, use sufficient force until the situation between Russia and the victim of its attack had been restored to what it was before the war, and the Muscovite army had returned behind its own borders.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Oily Trap for Putin
A Growing Sino-Russian Threat to the West
AI Drones: Ukraine’s New Edge in the War?

Does the attack by Russian rebels pose a problem for Ukraine?

Today's news reported that a military unit composed of Russian rebels from Ukraine crossed the border into Russia. The reason for the attack has been attributed to increased attacks on Ukraine by Russian forces. According to the Visegrad 24 channel, the attackers have threatened that "their goal is Moscow's Red Square."

This turn of events is not rational from the perspective of Ukraine or, especially, Western countries because Vladimir Putin could use it to legitimize Russian military operations in Ukraine and elsewhere. It is also important to remember the statement made by Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov in an interview with the US channel CNN: "If our country faces an existential threat, the (use of nuclear weapons) may be considered."

Of course, it is evident that a Russian military unit from Ukraine will never reach Red Square and, therefore, does not pose an "existential threat" to Putin or Russia itself. However, facts have never mattered in Putin's actions. Therefore, the border crossing that has occurred now could lead to at least nuclear threats against Ukraine.

Another unfortunate consequence for Ukrainians may be that public opinion in Western countries turns against assisting Ukraine. If this happens, Ukraine's received military aid may decrease, endangering the country's defense against Russian aggression.

Hence, President Zelensky's advisor's comment stating that Ukraine has nothing to do with the attacking unit is sensible. It remains to be seen whether it will be believed in Putin's administration or even in Western countries.

Of course, I hope that the advisor's statement about Ukraine's dissociation from the attack by the Russian unit holds true and is believed everywhere beyond Ukraine's borders. I also hope that neither of the unpleasant possibilities I mentioned earlier materializes. 

Instead, I hope that the Russians do not exploit the propaganda advantage offered to them and that Western countries perceive the Russian rebels' attack as a rebellion against Putin's regime. Unfortunately, the outcome does not depend on my earnest wish. And not even from the fact that crossing the border could still be a repetition of the shots fired at Mainila.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
Will China ally with Russia against Ukraine?
Did the Finnish Prime Minister promise Hornet fighter jets to Ukraine?
Incapable of learning but capable of genocide