Precedent from France Opens EU Pathway for Gaza Palestinians

The French National Asylum Court has issued an important precedent-setting decision, stating that a Palestinian from Gaza must be granted asylum. This is based on the court's opinion that the military operations carried out by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip are now sufficiently severe to be considered a form of persecution.

This sets a legal precedent according to which every Palestinian from Gaza — from infants to Hamas terrorists — is entitled to settle in France. And thereafter, under the Schengen Agreement, they would be able to move freely throughout the EU.

It remains to be seen, however, how many Palestinians will take advantage of this newly opened opportunity and seek to move from Gaza to France — and how many will actually succeed in doing so.

From Israel's perspective, the possibility is extremely tempting, because if moving to France becomes popular, it could be a way to empty the Gaza Strip and repurpose it for use by its own population. On the other hand, this very possibility might limit the willingness of Palestinians to leave the area.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
When Demands Become Damage 
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator
Western Countries Have Neither a Reason Nor a Need to Accept Asylum Seekers from Syria or Gaza

Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?

Parliament decided today by a clear majority that Finland will withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, allowing its Defence Forces to once again utilize anti-personnel mines in their operations. The vote result was 157 in favor and 18 against.

Thus ended the risky decision taken in 2011 by Finland’s Social Democratic President Tarja Halonen and the National Coalition Party’s Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen. At that time, the only parties voting against the treaty in Parliament were the Finns Party and a small number of Centre Party representatives.

Today, those who voted against the withdrawal agreement — effectively voting in favor of Putin — included ten members of the Left Alliance parliamentary group (1), seven members of the Greens (2), and one representative of the Swedish People's Party (3). These individuals are widely regarded in Finland as errand boys and girls for Putin.

All other members present supported the reintroduction of anti-personnel mines as a means of defense, to ensure that Russia remains on the eastern side of the approximately 1,300-kilometer border between the two countries. Many recognized the urgency of this need already in 2014, when Putin’s "little green men" occupied Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. For those slower to grasp the situation, the reality became clear in 2022, when the Russian army invaded Ukraine.

* * *

In this context, I cannot help but express my astonishment at UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who took it upon himself to interfere in Finnish decision-making by strongly advocating for Finland to remain in the treaty. The reasons for this are anyone’s guess, as it would seem quite strange if the head of the United Nations were somehow under the influence of the Russian dictator.

Of course, it’s also possible that Guterres was simply unaware of how Finland uses anti-personnel mines and feared they would pose a danger to civilians. However, this fear is unfounded, because — unlike in developing countries — Finnish mines are not scattered randomly in the terrain.

Instead, the Finnish army lays minefields only when there is a clearly identified threat, and even then, their locations are recorded both on paper and in electronic systems. This ensures that minefields can be dismantled immediately when no longer needed — and therefore do not pose a threat to civilian lives or health.

1. Timo Furuholm, Veronika Honkasalo. Mai Kivelä, Anna Kontula, Minja Koskela, Pia Lohikoski, Laura Meriluoto, Aino-Kaisa Pekonen, Hanna Sarkkinen and Johannes Yrttiaho)
2. Fatim Diarra, Tiina Elo, Bella Forsgrén, Inka Hopsu, Saara Hyrkkö, Jenni Pitko and Oras Tynkkynen
   
3. Eva Biaudét

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

Changing the Clocks Reduces Trust in the European Union

The European Union will once again switch to standard time tonight. This happens despite the fact that 84 percent of Europeans would prefer to completely abandon the foolish and costly practice of changing the clocks twice a year.

I call it costly because it has been proven to cause fatigue, impair memory, concentration, and attention. In addition, people’s reaction times slow down, increasing their likelihood of making mistakes. This raises the risk of accidents and mishaps—and these errors don't improve work quality either.

On the other hand, there is no demonstrated benefit to the clock changes themselves. To understand this, one must be able to distinguish between the act of shifting the clocks back and forth and the impact of time zones on people. Even though daylight saving time might suit people well, its benefits could be achieved simply by a permanent shift to a later time zone—meaning the abandonment of the shift back to standard time.

Despite all these well-known facts, the clocks are still being adjusted. And the reason is none other than the inability of the European Union and its member states to implement a decision that has already been made in 2019.

Therefore, I would like to ask Ursula van der Leyen and the other members of the Commission, as well as the Members of the European Parliament, how they think this inability fosters people’s trust in the Union or its effectiveness in promoting the well-being of its citizens.

And yes. I am well aware that my question is rhetorical, and that every single European knows the answer. And the real answer to my rhetoric certainly doesn’t help promote the good things for which the EU was created.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU Is Suffocating Under Double Bureaucracy
EU Decision-Makers Did the Bear a Disservice
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed

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

The European Commission appears unreliable as a decision-maker to the Finns

In Finland, it is customary to trust a person's word, whether it be a man's or a woman's, once it has been given. Therefore, a person who goes back on their word is considered unreliable.

This cultural characteristic has contributed to making Finnish society quite functional in many ways, despite the fact that there are many unreliable individuals also in Finland.

That is why it was interesting, but unfortunate, to read about how Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen (Social Democrat) lightly approached the promise that the EU made when establishing the European Union Recovery Instrument. That is, the promise that the EU would no longer take on shared debt.

The article mentioned that Finland has been opposing the mentioned EU sovereignty fund. According to the article, it could be established either with debt financing or by granting the Union new types of fundraising possibilities - in plain language, some form of taxation authority.

So far, Finnish political parties have been quite united in this matter, likely due to the influence of negative public opinion. It remains to be seen what kind of operation the EU propaganda machinery will embark on to change it - as the article in question seems to ultimately address this issue.

In the article, Urpilainen also brought up another point. According to her, Finland's decision-making concerning EU matters should be altered to enable more proactive influence.

Regarding this matter, it is likely that all Finns can agree, to some extent, that Finland should indeed allocate resources to proactively influence EU decision-making. This is necessary to counteract decisions that could be harmful to both Finland and the entire EU, ideally at the earliest possible stage. However, it is important to acknowledge that each influencer or lobbyist operating in Brussels contributes to indirect costs associated with the EU, thereby increasing the financial burden on our national economy and that of other countries within the EU.

Therefore, the most crucial EU matter for the upcoming Finnish government this year is to exert influence on all EU member states to ensure the selection of competent individuals capable of making sensible decisions as commissioners. This is crucial to prevent future catastrophes similar to the von der Leyen Commission, which consists primarily of politicians who had largely failed in their national political careers.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin is quickly losing her national credibility
Fair policy will build a strong Union
Will an attitude lead Ukraine into EU?

Military advice: Ukraine needs modern tanks

Russia did not keep peace in Ukraine during their Christmas-time although they made such a promise. Obviously, that was not even a purpose, but some kind of propaganda action directed towards ordinary Russians by enabling dictator Putin to blame Ukrainians for not respecting holy religious values. 

Yesterday a retired Finnish general Pekka Toveri reminded that Ukraine needs modern military material from the Western countries in order to enable them to push the invaders out of their country. Right now - after giving up-to-date air defense materials and light tanks - battle tanks should be provided to Zelenskiy´s army. 

The General proposed that 300 to 400 Leopard tanks would make a difference, but also any other modern tank superior to Russian equipment would do. Leopards are, however, best available in Europe.

The problem may turn out to be a permission needed from Germany - where Leopards are made - which has shown weakness throughout the war in its willingness to help Ukrainians. Fortunately, however, Germans have slowly started to realize that help for the defender is not an aggression towards Russia but an obligatory self defense action to secure democracy and values in Europe. 

If Europeans including Germany will follow General´s suggestion, they will send the necessary number of battle tanks to Ukraine, and train crews for them. As a result, Ukraine would have enough power to push out Russians from the occupied areas in eastern and southern parts of the country. 

The alternative for providing tanks to Ukraine would be an enormous number of dead Ukrainian and Russian soldiers - and Ukrainian civilians - in a slowly progressing war reminding us on the horrors of the World War I, during which the defense lines of neither side could be broken, but human lives were lost in an unfathomable rate.

So, it is up to us Europeans to decide, whether we will defend democracy and save human lives in the war of Ukraine. Or in other words, whether we will provide the Russian dictator a clear sign to stop his attack against our values - and save both Ukrainians and Russian soldiers from paying with their lives our inability to make difficult decisions.

In Finland there is no problem in understanding this. According to the chairman of the defense committee of its parliament, Finland is ready to participate - but only as part of a European action.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Good news from Ukraine
Finnish Winter war showed the way to help Ukraine
Ukrainian army should be equipped with the best possible weapons against missiles

Could China take advantage on the weakness of Putin´s Russia?

The Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs has asked China to offer Ukraine security guarantees. The request was reported also in Chinese media with critical comments on Russian´s military activities in Ukraine. 

China has thus far been notably neutral in the conflict. The request by Ukrainians, however, put them to a new situation, where all decisions can be interpreted as support to either of the sides.

Russia is an important neighbor to China, but economically insignificant compared to the western world. That would not change even if Chinese could take advantage on the Russian´s blockade from international trade, and use them almost imperialistically as a source of cheap raw materials.

Thus, the Chinese leaders are now in a position, where they are forced to make decisions. And most interestingly, one option for them might be to drive Russian economy so down, that they could ultimately negotiate about the position of the borders between China and Russia. After all, China had to give Russians large areas in peace negotiations around year 1860 - and they have not forgotten that. 

If so, that would be the final step in the loss of Putin´s dream to become a significant Russian  leader comparable to Peter I the Great or Josef Stalin. Instead, he would be remembered as one of the most notable losers in the Russian history.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
It hurts Russians to learn about the truth
Is President Putin on his way to repeat the destiny of Czar Nicholas II?
Trump is leaving Africa