Murder Case Paused Because of Language Barriers – Who Pays the Price?

The Finnish media outlet MTV3 reported that the trial of a relative of an immigrant living in Finland, who had resided in the country for two years, was suspended because, according to the presiding judge, “the interpretation is too inaccurate, so we cannot continue. However, the charges are very serious.”

According to the report, the homicide discussed in court took place in Suurpelto, Espoo, in August 2025, when the accused shot his ex-wife in the back in the stairwell of an apartment building. There are witnesses to the case, as the children of the killer and the victim saw the act, and the suspect himself has not denied taking the woman’s life.

The motive is suspected to be related to the perpetrator’s family honor – or rather the shame allegedly caused to it by the divorce. However, both the accused and the person suspected of assisting him have denied this.

There is essentially nothing unclear about the case: the killer and the murder weapon are known, and the victim is dead. Therefore, instead of determining guilt, the court is considering whether the act constitutes murder or manslaughter.

This is despite the fact that a male relative of the accused, initially suspected of supplying the weapon, denied doing so and instead claimed to have found it in an ordinary cardboard box in the basement of a pizzeria owned by the accused. Furthermore, a Turkish man closely related to the suspect and allegedly involved in the plot is known to have sent messages to the victim referring to a primitive concept of honor and low intelligence.

* * *

This case became the subject of a blog post because a man who has lived in our country for two years has required an interpreter in court and is unable to communicate in Finnish or Swedish, the official languages of the country. Nor is he able to understand the court’s informational needs even through an interpreter.

This inability costs real money, and neither of the previously linked news articles states who pays for it. I therefore asked an AI about this, which informed me that “if an interpreter is needed in court proceedings (for example, if the accused, a witness, or another person does not know Finnish or Swedish), the court will provide one,” and that the costs “are covered by state funds and are not directly payable by the parties.”

* * *

This is not a small matter, as interpreters are widely used in court proceedings. For example, the Helsinki police have reported that a couple of years ago, foreign suspects accounted for about 33 percent of all sexual offenses in the capital, and about 40 percent of rape cases.

I am not, of course, calling for trials to be conducted in a language that the accused do not understand. Instead, I would like to see more common sense in Finnish immigration policy. Above all, there should be strict requirements related to language learning for those immigrants who remain in the country for a longer period.

I am convinced that the costs of language proficiency testing would be offset for society through reduced interpretation expenses and—above all—through better integration of immigrants into society and the resulting higher employment rate. Nor do I see any sustainable reason why improved language skills would not also be beneficial for the immigrants themselves.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Perspectives on Immigration Restrictions in Finland and the U.S.
Finally, Honest Reporting on Immigration and Crime
Two Recent Life-Threatening Crimes in Finland

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

Free School Education for Foreigners Ends in Finland

The Parliament of Finland approved the government’s proposal according to which students from outside the EU and EEA will in the future pay an annual fee in upper-secondary schools (lukio) and vocational institutions corresponding to the actual cost of their education. We are not talking about small sums: for example, the cost of one year of upper-secondary school can exceed 10,000 euros.

According to Statistics Finland, in 2022 there were about 35,000 foreign nationals studying in vocational education and about 3,400 in upper-secondary schools. These figures also include people from EU and EEA countries, to whom the legislative change does not apply. The largest groups in vocational schools were Estonians (around 4,500), Russians (around 4,500), Iraqis (around 3,500), Afghans (around 2,200) and Filipinos (around 2,000).

In Parliament, the proposal was opposed not only by the left-wing parties—the Greens and the Left Alliance—but also by the Centre Party. It would be interesting to know what the party’s voters think about the matter at a time when public services have been cut and will continue to be cut drastically—if not from foreigners’ services, then from Finns’.

This was also noted by MP Joakim Vigelius, who additionally stated—quite correctly—that "Finland cannot be the world’s educational hub, nor a global social service office, health centre, care home or prison. The money will not be sufficient if the number of those to be served expands to everyone crossing the border without conditions, fees or responsibilities."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Attitudes Toward Immigrants Are a Problem in Schools
Has Modern Education Strayed Too Far — and Is It Time to Change Course?
Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Laitavasemmisto ja Keskusta haluaisivat Suomesta koko maailman ilmaisen koulutuskeskuksen

Estonia Needs Its Own Air Force

Finland’s Air Force’s operations outside the country’s borders are restricted — in peacetime — by national regulations according to which fighters do not — without a separate decision — fly in other states’ airspace. Now, however, Estonian politician Kalev Stoicescu has asked Finland to change its practices in this respect.

The background is that Estonia itself does not have a proper air force; the defence of its airspace is handled by fighters from other NATO countries stationed at the Ämari base. In the Baltic Sea area in particular, it may happen that Finnish fighters can react to Russian border violations more quickly than those departing from Ämari.

For Finland the problem is that we have a 1,340-kilometre border with Russia. That gives us more than enough to monitor — and, if necessary, to intercept — without expanding the area under surveillance to the south of the Gulf of Finland.

Therefore I am of the opinion that the Estonians would be better advised to consider establishing their own fighter fleet rather than asking the Finns for help. Of course that would be expensive, and the size of Estonia’s economy does not allow for funding a very large fleet, and so would not enable them, in a real crisis, to fend off the Russian Air Force on their own.

On the other hand, an Estonian squadron would not have to operate alone; it would rather complement the support the country already receives from NATO. Through this, Estonia’s defence of its airspace against intruders would also be substantially improved compared with the present.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland’s Response to Unauthorized Aircraft Entering Its Airspace
Russia’s Aging MiG Fleet vs. Finland’s Modern Air Power
Finns - Among the World’s Best

Is Cable Cutting a Crime Without Punishment?

Finland detained a vessel named Eagle S, which had dragged its anchor across the seabed and damaged submarine cables in the Baltic Sea. The investigation took some time, after which the evidence was submitted to a Finnish district court, i.e., the lowest judicial instance.

Instead of assessing the criminal liability of the act and delivering a verdict to those found guilty, the district court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to decide in such a criminal case. Therefore, the matter should be dealt with either in the courts of the crew’s home countries or in the courts of the flag state of the Eagle S. In other words, the case would fall under the jurisdiction of the Cook Islands, Georgia, or India.

However, Professor Ulla Tapaninen, a maritime transport expert at Tallinn University of Technology, has noted that “district courts often prefer to move complex cases up to higher judicial levels.” For this reason, she argues it is reasonable that the Eagle S case would be escalated from the district court to the court of appeal, which is one step higher in the judicial hierarchy.

In other words, the Finnish professor at the Estonian university assumes that the legal proceedings will continue in Finland. This raises the question: if that happens, will the court of appeal consider itself competent—contrary to the district court’s conclusion—to convict the crew of the Eagle S?

And if that is the case, who will bear the costs? The Finnish taxpayer, who has already been burdened with bills amounting to hundreds of thousands of euros?

And what would happen after such a farce? Would the case then be transferred to the courts of the Cook Islands, Georgia, or India—or would the legal consequences of the damage caused by the Eagle S to the submarine cables ultimately remain unaddressed?

And furthermore, if that is the case, does it mean that in the future the submarine cables running along the seabed of the Baltic Sea and other seas may be cut at will and without consequences?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Sabotage in the Baltic Sea Sparks Calls for New Maritime Borders
Finland Detains Russia-Linked Ship Suspected of Cable Damage

Organized Vandalism in Helsinki, Finland

An office building located in Helsinki, the capital of Finland, was vandalized with red paint last night. The building houses the Finnish branch of Allianz Trade Suomi, so the incident is most likely connected to organized terrorism targeting that particular company.

This conclusion is supported by a report from Middle East Monitor in January, which stated that the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action had already carried out similar actions against 15 Allianz offices across Europe.

The act appears to have been carried out by a group called Palestine Action Suomi, which has previously vandalized the historic and valuable Finnish Ministry of Defence building, as well as the premises of Nammo, a company manufacturing defense equipment. In the latter case, the group's justification for its reckless actions was either false or misleading.

One can only hope that the police succeed in identifying and locating those responsible for the vandalism so they can be brought to justice and held accountable for the damage caused, as well as the costs of cleaning up the paint. In this regard, I am fairly confident, as the Finnish police have proven to be highly effective in recent decades.

It is also important that Finnish media outlets prominently report the legal consequences and compensation rulings related to this politically motivated vandalism once the court has issued its decision. Such reporting would help younger generations understand how irrational it is to join organizations like Palestine Action, instead of seeking to influence political issues through legal and democratic means.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Activism Without Truth 
Greta Thunberg in Search of a Greater Thrill
The demands of the vandals

Ukraine’s Justified Exit From the Ottawa Convention

Ukraine is doing the same as Finland—that is, withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. This is, of course, understandable given that by refraining from using mines, its army gives an unnecessary advantage to Russia’s invading forces, who sow mines wherever they go.

In fact, I find it astonishing that the Ukrainians have abided by the treaty for this long, even though it has likely cost the lives of many Ukrainian soldiers. That alone shows Ukraine’s genuine intent to comply with the treaty for as long as possible.

However, enough is enough, and upholding a treaty cannot be more important than a nation’s independence. For this reason, I fully support President Zelensky, who today signed the necessary decree for the withdrawal. 

I also hope the country will soon have access to the mines it needs to ease its defensive struggle. Perhaps Finland and Ukraine could even cooperate on this issue!?

This case also demonstrates that treaties restricting military capabilities are a double-edged sword. While they may, in principle, reduce human suffering—as is the goal of the landmine ban—there can be even greater values at stake, such as the very survival of an entire nation.

That’s why I believe states should take a very cautious approach toward agreements that reduce their military effectiveness, especially when they share borders with nations harboring imperialist ambitions. In other words, nations like Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

Trump Jeopardizes NATO Progress

A while ago, President Donald Trump announced that NATO countries should increase their defense spending to five percent of their gross domestic product. A large portion of the European members of NATO have appeared ready to accept this goal after NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that this could be achieved by raising actual military spending to 3.5 percent, with the remaining 1.5 percent consisting of other security-related activities.

The positive attitude of European countries is due to the undeniable fact that Vladimir Putin’s Russia has demonstrated its ruthlessness in Ukraine, and Europeans are unwilling to risk their security — especially not the United States' commitment to the continent’s security arrangements. Only Spain’s socialist president, Pedro Sánchez, has clearly voiced disagreement.

The continuation of this positive development is now in jeopardy, as Trump announced that the five percent rule would not apply to the United States. His justification is the — admittedly accurate — claim that the U.S. has so far borne the lion’s share of NATO’s military capabilities and their costs.

It remains to be seen how Europeans will react to Trump’s statement. Will it prompt other financially weaker countries, especially those far from the Russian border and thus at lower risk, to join Pedro Sánchez in resisting the NATO spending demands?

Such an outcome would be extremely unfortunate for both Europe and the United States — for Europe, because its security would not improve as much as it recently seemed it might; and for the U.S., because it would clearly weaken its influence in global politics. The winners would include not only Vladimir Putin’s Russia but also — and even more clearly — Xi Jinping’s China, which is looking forward to seizing Taiwan for itself.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Pedro Sánchez Sides with Europe's Fifth Column on Russia
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Ukraine’s Former Foreign Minister Warns Against Another 1939

Send the Bill to Paris!

The Beninese kataklè stool ended up in the National Museum of Finland in 1939, when it and the Musée de l’Homme in Paris exchanged items with each other. The object had made its way to France after French Colonel Dodds looted the wooden stool from the palace of the king of the Kingdom of Dahomey—located in what is now Benin—in 1892.

A kataklè is a three-legged stool used by Dahomean chiefs as a seat, or by the king as a footrest. It holds significant emotional value for the people of Benin, which is why they had requested its return from Finland.

And that is what happened: on Tuesday, Finland’s Minister of Science and Culture, Mari-Leena Talvitie, returned the kataklè stool to the state of Benin. The trip cost a total of €14,800.40, which included travel expenses, visas, and daily allowances for the minister, a special advisor, a security officer, and one official. This figure does not include their salaries, which, with ancillary costs, amount to several thousand euros more.

As a Finnish taxpayer—entirely innocent of the theft of the kataklè stool, as were also my ancestors—I found myself wondering: doesn't this essentially mean that Finns are now paying a considerable sum because of a French colonel’s crime? Wouldn’t it be only fair for the Finnish government to send an invoice to the French, and for them to gladly settle it with hard cash?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
An African and an Iranian Immigrant Educated a Woke-Blinded Deputy Mayor
A Finnish Deputy Mayor Wanted to Ban an Old Board Game from Children
Will the multinational force led by Kenyans help?

Finland to Tighten Citizenship Requirements Further

The requirements for obtaining Finnish citizenship are being tightened by introducing a citizenship test. The aim is to ensure that only immigrants who have successfully integrated, follow the rules of Finnish society, and earn their livelihood through work can become citizens of the country.

With this reform, Finland follows the example of several other EU member states, where citizenship applicants are already required to demonstrate language proficiency—which is already tested—as well as knowledge of society, but goes even further. Sweden, which has suffered increasingly severe immigration-related problems year after year, is also taking similar measures.

Additionally, the Finnish government plans to tighten the requirements for a clean criminal record and self-sufficiency, as well as make it easier to revoke citizenship from those who fail to live according to the norms of Finnish society. In other words, immigrants who have committed crimes or lived solely on social welfare will no longer be eligible for citizenship. Moreover, citizenship may also be revoked if an individual turns to criminal activities.

In Finland, the required period of residence for citizenship eligibility was previously extended to eight years, and only legally documented time is counted. For example, the period during which asylum seekers await a residence permit is not included in this time frame.

These changes are expected to ensure that Finland continues to attract work-based immigration while discouraging those who seek to live off the Finnish welfare system. At the same time, the reform is hoped to encourage all newcomers to integrate as constructive members of Finnish society.

In other words, the Finnish government's goal is to make immigration a positive factor for Finnish society rather than merely a growing burden in the future. As a Finn, one can only hope that this objective will be achieved.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish Immigration Policy Aims to Maximize Benefits and Minimize Drawbacks
Immigration Policy Should Be Based on Evidence
10% of Foreign Students in Finland Failed to Meet Residence Requirements

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?

Healthcare Services for Undocumented Immigrants are a Pull Factor for Harmful Immigration

The Finnish government's intentions to restrict healthcare services for people living in the country illegally have received harsh criticism. The issue is that the change proposed by the current government would effectively overturn a decision made during the last parliamentary term, which granted undocumented individuals the right to essential non-urgent healthcare services.

In a statement from the Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa (HUS), which is responsible for providing specialized medical care in the region, it was suggested that "the underlying reasons for the proposed legislative amendment are more political than due to observed real problems." It was also stated that "tightening the regulations to approximately previous levels would thus likely increase the resources used for treating patients living illegally in the country."

The South Karelia social and health care district also opposed the legislative amendment, suggesting that "the benefits of the proposed legislation for the state budget and healthcare capacity would be marginal, but the risk of increased human suffering is significant." The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare claimed that "the proposed regulatory solution could lead to an increase in overall healthcare costs instead of achieving savings."

Helsinki Mayor Juhana Vartiainen (National Coalition Party) also commented on the issue, stating that "there is no reason to exclude part of the undocumented population from essential healthcare on the grounds that it would particularly burden the healthcare system." Therefore, the City of Helsinki does not support the legislative amendment.

In my view, each of these statements is foolish, as providing healthcare services to those living illegally in the country is part of the overall system that attracts social welfare-based economic migrants, which causes enormous costs and, on top of that, fosters a breeding ground for sexual and gang-related crime.

For this reason, healthcare services for people living illegally in the country are extremely detrimental to Finnish society and the safety of those legally residing here. Hence, the government's effort to further restrict healthcare for illegal residents is highly commendable, although it is too lenient and insufficient on its own.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Immigration issue
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth
The human rights of immigrant women are not important in Finland

The British human rights decision led to unwarranted calls

In the UK, a bill has passed which would allow asylum seekers to be sent to Rwanda while awaiting a decision on their asylum application. However, this hasn't been put into practice just yet, as it requires approval from King Charles first, followed by what are known as human rights activists organizing a trial farce, and then there must be a court decision on the matter.

In the future, we will likely see mass deportations of asylum seekers from Europe to Africa. Additionally, according to the new British law, a potential asylum would only entitle the applicant to stay in Rwanda—not to unsettle British society.

What's particularly interesting about the case is that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has directly stated that the purpose of enacting the law was to create a deterrent effect on asylum seekers heading to Britain. On the other hand, there has been skepticism in the opposition about its impact on the numbers of people attempting to cross the Channel.

It remains to be seen how the law will impact the numbers of asylum seekers attempting to cross the English Channel. Will it achieve its goal of redirecting the flow of people, or will the previous trend continue, with the difference being that British taxpayer money is used for the nearly 6,500-kilometer flights of arrivals?

The question is pertinent, as according to Britain's own parliamentary institution, the Rwanda program costs nearly two million pounds per asylum seeker sent to Africa. If this estimate holds true, the bill for combating modern-day migration will be considerable.

On the other hand, if the flows of migrants seeking to exploit European social welfare were indeed effectively redirected elsewhere as a result of the decision, London's administration would save significantly more money. Moreover, the process of demographic change in Britain, sometimes referred to as population replacement, would slow down significantly from its current pace. Consequently, Britain's population would remain predominantly European well into the future.

* * *

Today I got to read an article where it was reported that the United Nations and the EU are urging the island nation to reject the bill.

According to the story, Michael O'Flaherty, the director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), expressed that he is "concerned that the Rwanda bill enables the implementation of a policy of removing people to Rwanda without any prior assessment of their asylum claims by the UK authorities in the majority of cases.

The statement raises the question of whether there is a misunderstanding among influential figures in the UN and EU. The explicit intention of the British bill is that the assessment of the spontaneous asylum seekers' protection will be conducted in Rwanda, and thus there is no rational basis for conducting it first in the UK.

According to the same article, Rwanda has expressed satisfaction with Britain's decision and welcomes any potential entrants. This way, they can find a safe place to build their lives, which is ultimately what the international asylum system is about. It's not about the subjective right of all people in the world to settle in Europe and burden its inhabitants' economy or change its culture.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A white family does not represent real Londoners
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry
The arrival of caliphate citizens must be prevented