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

Jesuit Morality in Crime Reporting on Immigrants

Attitudes toward the problems of humanitarian immigration in the UK took a strange turn after Keir Starmer came to power. He began arresting people participating in protests and those complaining about abuses, and even started releasing criminals from prisons to make room for these political prisoners.

Since then, Starmer has changed direction and ordered investigations into the most serious crimes. From here in Finland, I can't say how seriously those investigations have been pursued.

* * *

In Finland, too, efforts were made to conceal the problems of immigration for a long time, but gradually this became difficult as the general sense of security—or lack thereof—became increasingly widespread. At some point, Finnish media decided that the names of criminals would be published if their sentences were at least two years long.

However, the fact remains that hardly anyone is interested in the names of those convicted. Rather, what is important—especially in terms of people's views on immigration policy—is that the ethnic background of those who commit crimes should be reported in all, or at least in more than minor, offenses.

* * *

Today’s crime news concerned a man about ten years older who had provided intoxicants and sexually exploited a girl who was originally 12 years old over a two-year period. Nothing is said about the man's ethnic background; instead, it’s stated that “the name of the convicted is withheld to protect the victim.”

This practice has become more common in most media in recent years. As a result, essential information about the perpetrators of sexual crimes—particularly those against teenagers—is increasingly being withheld. This is the case even though people aren’t interested in the offender’s name, as I stated earlier, but in whether the person belongs to the native or immigrant population.

This sharply contradicts the guidelines used by the Finnish press, which remind journalists that—quote—“journalism that strives for truth helps the public form a picture of society and the world.” Instead, it seems to follow the centuries-old Jesuit morality, in which "the end justifies the means."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously
The Increasing Criminality Among Swedish Students Stems from Their Values
Is the UK's Democracy Facing an Existential Crisis?

Non-Discrimination Ombudsman Attempted to Prohibit the Use of Statistics in Quota Refugee Selection

Finland's Non-Discrimination Ombudsman issued a statement on Thursday, stating that discriminatory guidelines were given in the preparation of the refugee quota led by Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen (Finns Party). According to the Ombudsman, the political leadership has sought to favor Christian refugees at the expense of those coming from Muslim-majority countries.

Additionally, the Ombudsman’s statement mentioned the objectives of the Finns Party and used the words "open Islamophobia." She argued that the actions of the minister and her special advisor appear consistent with those objectives.

* * *

Official guidelines for Finnish civil servants explicitly state that "since a civil servant exercises public authority in their work, they must strictly follow the law and act impartially, independently, and fairly." Furthermore, they state—again verbatim—that "a civil servant must not abuse their power."

Thus, Minister of Finance and Finns Party leader Riikka Purra did not simply shrug off the statement from the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman, which is a state authority. Instead, she acknowledged that the statement was a serious matter, as "discrimination is a criminal offense." As a result, the Minister of the Interior and her ministry will examine the statement, and the Chancellor of Justice is also expected to provide an opinion on the matter.

However, according to Purra, the decision-making process regarding the refugee quota was conducted normally. She also found it "procedurally quite unusual that the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman is reading political party programs and drawing conclusions for its official processes based on them."

Additionally, she pointed out that "just a few days ago, the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman also commented more broadly on the effects of the government's immigration policy changes, so this is not the first time."

* * *

Many other Finns Party members also weighed in on the matter. Jani Mäkelä, the leader of the party’s parliamentary group, stated that "particularly the term Islamophobia and the fact that the Ombudsman openly attacks the Finns Party as a party in the statement and analyzes our policies—this, in my opinion, is not part of the Ombudsman’s duties at all."

Party secretary Harri Vuorenpää, in turn, remarked that it is "shocking that an authority whose role is specifically to ensure equality is attacking a single political party in such an openly hostile and generalized manner. We find this to be highly inappropriate and something that only deepens divisions in society."

He also questioned why those who speak about issues related to Islam are now being labeled as Islamophobes. He continued by saying that "such methods of silencing opinions are common on social media, but surely an authority responsible for equality should restrain itself... One has to wonder why the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman interprets the Finns Party’s policies so negatively. Is the Ombudsman suffering from Finns Party-phobia?"

* * *

The political left and the Greens naturally held a completely opposite view and demanded a statement from Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party). It remains to be seen what will follow—if anything at all. However, at this stage, the only certainty is that the final decision on the legality of the government's refugee quota policies will be made by the Chancellor of Justice.

As for my own stance, I firmly support selecting quota refugees in a way that ensures those coming to Finland have the best possible conditions for integrating into Western society. Accordingly, I support the government’s policy of considering Christianity as a positive criterion when selecting refugees to be admitted to Finland. 

However, my reasoning is not based—illegally—on religion itself but rather on observed differences over the years in crime statistics and employment rates between different immigrant groups in Finnish society. Ignoring these differences would simply be stupid.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish, Japanese, and Dutch Adults Lead in Literacy, Numeracy, and Problem-Solving Skills
Important Changes Ahead: What You Need to Know About Finland’s Quota Refugee Selection
The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman violates the law on openness