The Early Effects of Finland's Tightened Immigration Policy

Finnish immigration policy has led to an increase in sexual and violent crime. A recent example is 29-year-old Munir Suleyman Weyrah, whose sentence was reduced by the Court of Appeal to two years and ten months in prison after the District Court's ruling.

In addition, he was ordered to pay his victim €8,800 in compensation for emotional suffering. The amount is laughable considering that, after the assault, the victim has no longer been able to live in her own home.

Of course, the rape committed by Munir was only one case among many similar ones. Nor do I believe it will change the views of those Finns who have supported previous immigration policies any more than the large number of similar incidents that came before it.

As a result, Munir will undoubtedly have many who follow his example. And Finnish women will continue to "enjoy" forced sexual acts and the small compensation payments that follow from them.

* * *

This will happen despite the fact that Finland's current government has made many changes to immigration-related legislation. Moreover, previous mistakes in immigration policy have also been acknowledged in many other EU countries.

Unfortunately, those decisions are not yet reflected in the asylum statistics. During the past twelve months, the largest groups receiving positive asylum decisions have been 380 Somalis, 301 Afghans, and 140 Iraqis. These figures can be compared with the corresponding statistics from 2023, when the Orpo government took office: asylum was granted to 258 Afghans, 246 Somalis, and 174 Iraqis.

One positive development is that while Finland deported 120 Iraqis, 29 Somalis, and no Afghans in 2023, over the past 12 months deportation decisions have been issued for 214 Iraqis, 40 Somalis, and 26 Afghans. Admittedly, the numbers of deported Somalis and Afghans remain well below the numbers granted asylum, but in the case of Iraqis, the trend has reversed.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Swedish Ministers Condemn Antisemitic Protest Outside Jewish School
Attempted Homicides in Finland Reach Highest Level of the 2000s

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

Russia’s Shadow Fleet Exposes Gaps in International Law

A ship that had been dragging its anchor – Fitburg – damaged a cable running along the seabed of the Gulf of Finland yesterday. The Finnish Border Guard acted with its customary efficiency, documented the dangling anchor with photographs, and took the vessel into custody.

The case will next proceed to a more detailed investigation and, in due course, undoubtedly to court. This in itself sounds good, but I would like to draw your attention, dear readers, to what happened last October.

At that time, the Helsinki District Court announced that it would not examine the charges – in a similar case – against the vessel Eagle S, which belongs to Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, nor the compensation claims based on those charges. The court held that Finland’s Criminal Code could not be applied to the case.

The matter was commented on at the time by Member of Parliament Jarno Limnéll (National Coalition Party), who stated that “clearer legislation and international agreements are needed that give states the ability to deal with acts of this kind also in exclusive economic zones and international waters.” However, no such measures have emerged during the past couple of months.

For this reason, it seems clear to me that the Fitburg incident – quite evidently a cable sabotage operation ordered by Russia – is, logically speaking, a consequence of the Helsinki District Court’s decision and the shortcomings of international legislation. It is obvious that if breaking cables carries no consequences, Putin’s administration can continue sabotaging them without concern.

It is therefore easy to predict that cables running along the seabed of the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea will continue to be damaged – so to speak, “by accident” – in the future. And this will likely continue until the necessary provisions are enacted in international law, despite the expected opposition from Russia and its proxies.

* * *

If one wishes to see something positive in the Fitburg case, it is undoubtedly the efficiency of the actions taken by the Finnish authorities. The cable damage was investigated quickly, and the perpetrator was also stopped.

Because of the legislative problem mentioned above, the only sanction available against the ship’s owner and/or crew will likely be to look for deficiencies in the vessel’s condition, thereby delaying its departure. In this way, the crew would at least be forced to loiter for a while off the coast of Kirkkonummi.

It would be interesting to know whether the shipowner and/or its crew have made an agreement with Vladimir Putin’s administration regarding compensation for those days in rubles or in some stronger currency. The exchange rate of the ruble has recently been in a decline reminiscent of that famous cow’s tail, so the value of days compensated in Russian currency decreases over time.

In any case, any deficiencies found on the vessel must be investigated before it is allowed to leave Finnish territorial waters. And, of course, even the smallest faults discovered on the ship should be required to be carefully repaired before departure clearance is granted – to the vessel and its crew alike.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Is Cable Cutting a Crime Without Punishment?
Sabotage in the Baltic Sea Sparks Calls for New Maritime Borders
Finland Detains Russia-Linked Ship Suspected of Cable Damage

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Kansainvälinen lainsäädäntö kannusti Fitburgin kaapelisabotaasiin

Criminal Attack Against Finnish Democracy

This morning, the Finnish Extinction Rebellion, in collaboration with the Swedish group Återställ Våtmarker, defaced the Finnish Parliament House to gain visibility for their political views. That is why I won’t discuss their goals in this writing but will briefly present my own opinion on their actions.

Defacing the Parliament House was a direct attack on Finnish democracy, which is based on decisions made by representatives elected by the people. In making these decisions, all political perspectives are represented according to the weight they hold among the Finnish population.

However, this is not acceptable to the Extinction Rebellion activists and the Swedes involved in the defacement, as they demand for themselves a dictatorial right to decide on the nation’s common affairs. In other words, through their actions, they appear to be criminal usurpers of power who should receive the maximum legal punishment for their deeds and be held financially responsible for the costs - estimated to exceed 10 000 euros - incurred.

In this context, the Kone Foundation, established by the Finnish elevator manufacturer Kone Corporation, finds itself in a peculiar situation. It has publicly funded the activities of Extinction Rebellion, which, at least in the public's mind, makes it partially responsible for what happened. And it doesn't help that you say the funding you approved hasn't been earmarked for defacing the Parliament House.

In this situation, I expect the foundation to take responsibility. That is, to publicly announce the immediate cessation of its funding for the Finnish Extinction Rebellion, to refuse any involvement in paying for the damages caused by the activists, and to unequivocally condemn their actions.

Although the Kone Corporation is not directly responsible for the actions of its foundation, it would be good if the company also condemned the incident and, in one way or another, reprimanded its foundation for its reckless use of funds. This, of course, only if the company supports representative democracy and does not feel sympathy toward criminals—and even then, only if they care about their international reputation.

Finally, I do not believe that the action taken today will increase the acceptability of the activists' goals among ordinary people. On the contrary, it will probably - and hopefully - turn against them.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Relationship Between the Professor and Teemu Selänne
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics
Is the Finnish left-wing radicalizing?

The Environmental Crime Had Many Cooks, But Who Will Pay?

A couple of weeks ago, an environmental crime took place in Finland that has garnered massive attention in Finnish media. It involved the destruction of a river inhabited by the protected freshwater pearl mussel, caused by repeatedly driving a forestry machine over it hundreds of times.

The case came to light because there happened to be an outsider present at the scene, who pointed out the issue to the machine operator, only to receive a response filled with foul language and a statement that they would continue working as before. Since then, the case has led to a police investigation, but the outcome is not yet known.

In practice, the forest had been purchased by Stora Enso, a Finnish-Swedish forest industry company. It had contracted the forestry work to a harvesting contractor, who in turn had subcontracted the job. The crime itself was committed by an employee of this subcontractor.

However, Finnish news coverage has largely focused on Stora Enso's potential liability in the incident. It hasn't helped that the company has given an open mandate to repair whatever can be repaired at its expense and has suspended wood procurement from all sites known to have environmental restrictions. Additionally, it has reported one site to the authorities where the company suspects illegal activity may have taken place.

As I mentioned earlier, the matter is under police investigation, which will eventually determine who is responsible. Right now, however, it seems to me that Stora Enso has been unfairly placed in the spotlight, as the available information suggests that the company provided proper instructions to the contractor, but the operator did not follow them and continued illegal activity after being warned about it.

In any case, the destruction of freshwater pearl mussels has a price under Finnish law – 589 euros per individual – so the destruction of potentially thousands of animals could lead to compensation exceeding a million euros. It remains to be seen whether Stora Enso, the main contractor, the subcontractor, or the machine operator will be held financially responsible.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?
Forests in Indonesia and Finland
A new justification is needed for environmental activists

The Finns rewarded a mass murder with 213,000 euros

European immigration policy occasionally leads to sequences of events that are too unbelievable to be accepted even as the script of the silliest tragicomedy. What does my esteemed reader think of the following?

In Finland, a few years ago, Iraqi brothers were suspected of a mass murder. However, the charges did not lead to a conviction.

Three and a half years later, one of the Iraqi men confessed the crime. This happened last August when the Iraqi man was arrested by the police while filming with his twin brother outside the Finnish Security Intelligence Service building in Helsinki.

Specifically, the Iraqi told a detective that he had killed 1,700 people at Camp Speicher in Iraq. This is evident in the police video. It was a mass murder carried out by the terrorist organization ISIS, for which the same Iraqi man and his twin brother were acquitted by a court of appeal decision in February 2020.

Unfortunately, Finland practices overly protective legal practices towards criminals. Therefore, convicting the Iraqi man after the court has made a ruling of acquittal would require more evidence than just a confession. So right now, it seems that the Iraqi man can continue his peaceful and unrestricted life and enjoy the €213,000 he received from Finnish taxpayers as compensation for being detained during the investigation of his actions.

The Iraqi man and his brother must be having a good laugh right now.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: The Rwanda Law of Britain paves the way for the future of Western Europe Getting asylum in Finland becomes significantly more difficult A Finnish police officer is afraid to speak about the problems of immigration