Understanding of European Terrorism by Left-wing and Value-liberal Politicians

The terrorism situation and trend report published by Europol showed that jihadist terrorism was once again the deadliest form of terrorism in the EU in 2024. It claimed five lives and left 18 people injured.

During 2024, EU member states reported a total of 58 terrorist attacks. Of these, 34 were carried out, five failed, and 19 were foiled. Attacks were reported in 14 different countries. Of the attacks, 24 were considered to have been committed by jihadist terrorists. In 21 cases, the perpetrators were left-wing or anarchist terrorists.

On the other hand, a total of 40 attempted attacks were prevented in the European Union. Of these, 18 were jihadist-motivated, 21 left-wing or anarchist-motivated, and one far-right-motivated. The foiled jihadist attempts targeted in particular large public events, whereas the left-wing and anarchist attempts were mostly directed at industrial and private-sector targets.

I believe these figures speak for themselves about the consequences of European immigration policy, without me having to spell them out. Such an understanding would be especially important for left-wing and value-liberal politicians, who have been active supporters of this development.

Unfortunately, however, I am skeptical as to whether they would be able—or even willing—to draw logical conclusions from the figures I have presented, since immigration has long since ceased to be a fact-based issue and has instead become a kind of religious confession, in which dissent automatically leads to exclusion from one’s own reference group—and thus to the end of a political career.

Previous thought on the same topic:
Burning a Man Alive Led to Life Imprisonment
Will Tomorrow’s Elections in Germany Be a Turning Point?
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?

Demonstration Demonstrated the Selfishness of the Demonstrators

A World Rally Championship event is currently taking place in Jyväskylä, Finland. In connection with this, the Finnish branch of Extinction Rebellion, known as Elokapina, organized a protest without prior notice—in other words, an illegal demonstration—intended to disrupt the event. While the incident caused little actual disturbance to the rally itself, it demonstrated how little these identity politics-driven activists care about the law or other people.

This phenomenon is far from new. In fact, it has become an almost permanent feature of major sporting events (example). And it’s likely only a matter of time before the situation escalates to the point where the highlight of someone’s career—perhaps even the culmination of a lifetime dedicated to sport—is ruined.

That’s why it’s important that the activists who protested in Jyväskylä are brought to court, and that the full extent of penalties allowed by law be applied, to make clear that their actions are not acceptable. At the same time, lawmakers in Finland and elsewhere should revise legislation so that the threshold for disrupting major sporting events is raised as high as possible.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish Branch of Extinction Rebellion Faces Possible Ban
Eco-Fascist Blackmail: Threats of Sabotage Loom Over the World Ski Championships
Criminal Attack Against Finnish Democracy

Finnish International Law Experts Viewed as Political Influencers by Peers

Finland, like other Western nations, is a rule-of-law state where power is based on Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of powers. According to this principle, executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be vested in separate entities. In recent years, however, Finnish lawyers have increasingly been accused, particularly by the political right, of attempting to undermine the freedom of the Finnish Parliament, which exercises legislative power.

A striking comment about this issue was made today by Jukka Savolainen, the Network Director at the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats. He stated that many international legal experts view their Finnish colleagues more as political influencers than as lawyers focused on the impartial administration of justice.

Specifically, Savolainen noted: "Next week, I’ll be hosting a symposium with seven professors of international law, and the majority of them have expressed surprise at the emergence of Finnish international law experts. They’ve wondered whether these experts are just poor legal scholars. Then they’ve concluded, no, they’re political influencers."

Left-leaning legal scholars have particularly criticized the return law passed last year to counter Russia’s hybrid warfare. This law allowed Finland to close its eastern border, effectively halting the flow of asylum seekers facilitated by Russia. The legislative amendment was enacted despite opposition from these scholars and successfully stopped the influx of migrants across Finland’s eastern border.

According to Savolainen, the emergency law was enacted in accordance with proper legislative procedures. He also emphasized that Finland is a sovereign state that can choose its commitments and withdraw from them as it sees fit. Additionally, he noted that Russia’s modern warfare doctrine explicitly mentions directing migration waves toward targeted countries as a method of state destabilization, providing both theoretical and factual justification for the law.

Regrettably, I doubt that even the criticisms I have discussed here will have any effect on left-leaning Finnish legal scholars, whose leading figure is Martin Scheinin. Scheinin, a former member of the UN Human Rights Committee and also once involved in Finland’s Communist Party, has shown no respect for the separation of powers whenever it has conflicted with his own ambitions. This trend is evident throughout his career.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare
Finland to Tighten Asylum Legislation and Reduce Undocumented Residents
Putin's useful idiots in Finland