Is Female Genital Mutilation a Lesser Crime Than Rape?

The Finnish police have launched the first preliminary investigations into the genital mutilation of girls taking place within well-known immigrant communities. Hopefully, the cases will be clarified and those responsible will be punished.

According to a news report on the matter, a person guilty of mutilating girls’ genitals — that is, so-called circumcision — may be sentenced to imprisonment ranging from one to ten years. In other words, the scale is quite broad.

For my part, I would hope that the courts eventually handling the first cases will be up to their task and refrain from applying the lowest penalties on the scale. I justify this by noting that, according to the law, even basic-form rape must result in a custodial sentence of at least one year — and surely no reasonable person can consider the permanent damage of a woman’s genitals to be a lesser act than their forced use?

It is therefore also necessary to question the reasoning of lawmakers — that is, ministers and members of parliament — who have implicitly written into law the view that causing permanent bodily harm would be equivalent to causing temporary harm. This despite the fact that rape also has lasting and serious psychological consequences — but does not mutilation, which is considered particularly brutal violence, have many times more such consequences? And does the fact that it is typically inflicted on girls of growing age not make circumcision even more condemnable?

If I were a lawmaker myself, I would have started the penalty scale for mutilation from where it ends for ordinary rapes. I would also have added to the law the deportation of the parent or parents who decided on the mutilation, if they are not native Finns. After all, the intentional damage of genital organs is an act that demonstrates complete disregard for the values and legislation of Finnish society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will European Culture Collapse Under the Weight of Islamic Immigration?
Finnish Society Adopts Medieval Characteristics
A Muslim Woman's Lack of Solidarity with Iranian Women

Will Orpo’s Government Repeat Milei’s Miracle and Restore Finland’s Values?

In Argentina, President Javier Milei has been fixing the country’s economy with a firm hand. As a result, his party suffered a defeat in the provincial elections of the Buenos Aires region in September.

This morning, however, we learned that the president’s party is nevertheless set to win the parliamentary midterm elections—and by a considerable margin over the opposition. It therefore appears that, in Argentina as well, the political “climate” of the capital region differs from that of the rest of the country—just as in Finland.

For Argentinians, the outcome of the midterm election is undoubtedly a good thing, since abandoning the economic reform halfway would most likely have led their homeland into another downward spiral, from which Milei has only just managed to lift it. Now, he has the people’s mandate to complete his economic recovery program.

Although Argentina is far from Finland, its economic situation is by no means irrelevant to us. After all, we too have a government that has sought—albeit with extreme caution—to reduce state spending.

And that’s not all, because the task will also fall to the next government, if its members have even a shred of responsibility. Finland’s public finances have been chronically in debt since 2008, and nowadays the payment of interest alone consumes roughly three and a half billion euros of the state budget every year.

It remains to be seen whether the Finnish people will act like the Argentinians in the parliamentary elections to be held in 2027. In this regard, the development of Finland’s economy over the next year and a half will be a crucial question.

What matters most is that if the country’s economy and employment rate begin to grow as a result of the government’s actions, and the accumulation of debt can thereby be halted, then the current Orpo cabinet coalition will have a good chance—like Milei—to renew its mandate to lead the country. That, in turn, could put Finland’s economy back on a healthy footing.

At the same time, we could continue to repair the value base of our society toward realism. In this respect, immigration policy is a significant part of the whole.

* * *

In that light, it was interesting to read in this morning’s Helsingin Sanomat article that among the humanitarian immigrants who arrived in Finland in 2015, those who came as unaccompanied minors have fared the best. By contrast, those who arrived here as adults have unambiguously become a heavy burden on society.

The HS article suggested that the young people who came alone might have been unusually resourceful individuals, which could explain why they have succeeded in Finland better than other humanitarian refugees. That may partly explain their success, but I strongly suspect that culture also plays a role here.

More specifically, the transmission of culture from parents to children. It is clear that young people who live with their families and share the values of developing countries preserve their own cultural background more strongly than those who live alone. Therefore, they adopt Western attitudes and habits that lead to social success much less readily than those who arrived unaccompanied.

Against this background, it might make sense to make a complete U-turn in our current refugee policy and redefine Finnish humanitarian immigration—at least with regard to quota refugees—so that priority would be given to unaccompanied young people. At the same time, we could abolish family reunifications altogether, since they undoubtedly have harmful cultural consequences as well.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Toistaako Orpon hallitus Milein ihmeen ja korjaa suomalaisen arvopohjan?

Unintended Consequences of Modern Value Shifts

The world has changed significantly in this millennium. What used to be considered normal, even self-evident, is today not always even acceptable.

A startling example of this change appeared in Finland when two schoolboys got into a fierce fight, throwing punches and kicks at each other. A teacher tried to break it up by ordering them to stop, but to no avail.

So the teacher finally grabbed one of the boys and lifted him out of the situation. The hitting and kicking stopped, and no one was seriously injured.

But then something completely unexpected happened. One of the parents filed charges against the teacher, claiming that milder methods could have been used. What those methods might have been—given that the teacher had already ordered the boys verbally to stop—has never been explained publicly.

In any case, at the parents’ initiative, a legal process began that lasted a full year and a half before the prosecutor decided that the teacher’s actions would not be taken to court. It is clear that this time was extremely difficult for the teacher.

We can only guess how such a case will affect teachers’ willingness to intervene in schoolyard fights—not in a positive direction, surely. And for that reason it must be said that, as a consequence of the case I have described, school life likely became a little less safe than it once was.

For my part, I see this case as yet another indication that the value shifts of the 21st century—BLM, DEI, Woke culture, intersectional feminism, and so forth—do not make the world a better place. Instead, they seem to be leading to a decline in care for one another, double standards, less openness, and increasing social polarization in all kinds of ways, despite the fact that the stated aim was the exact opposite.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Has Modern Education Strayed Too Far — and Is It Time to Change Course?
Library Scrubs Queer Creator’s Character from Moomin Exhibit
Why Finnish Youth Are Abandoning the Green Party

The Left Wants to Grill a Swedish Minister Over His Son’s Past – What’s Really Behind It?

Swedish society is famously in disarray as a result of its immigration policies. Sweden has climbed to the top of the Western world in areas such as sexual crimes, shootings, and explosions. As a result, the Swedish police have warned their Finnish colleagues to prevent a similar development in Finland.

In this context, it was interesting to note the recent controversy in Sweden involving the Minister for Migration. It emerged that the minister's son has participated in activities of the far-right martial arts group "Active Club" and has also had connections with other far-right groups. Consequently, the political left in the country has demanded the minister’s resignation.

The minister himself has stated that he has no intention of resigning and that his son is no longer involved with far-right circles. However, the minister had previously emphasized the responsibility of parents for criminal and violent youth—something that appears to be unforgivable in the eyes of the political left, as it can easily be interpreted as criticism of the parents of violent immigrant youths.

As the Swedish parliament's summer session ends, the entire political left in Sweden is seeking to summon the minister for a hearing on the matter. This seems to be an attempt to gain public visibility and local support among the immigrant-origin population.

The latter motive would be logical, as although immigrants from developing countries have traditionally voted for left-wing parties, an increasing number of them have turned to support the party Nyans—that is, an Islamic party that now threatens the left’s dominant position among so-called "new Swedes".

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously 
Police to Finnish Graduates: Leave Fireworks, Blades, and Booze at Home
Why Integration Policy Must Confront Cultural Conflicts

A Fair Game or Unfair Judgment?

In a primary school located in a medium-sized coastal town in western Finland, seven-year-old girls and boys were tasked with competing to see which group behaved better in class and kept their surroundings tidier. In other words, they were judged on adherence to behavioral norms that were taken for granted in the schools of my childhood.

The girls won the competition and were rewarded with a toy day. This, however, upset the boys’ mothers, whose little darlings couldn’t manage to be tidy or behave properly.

As a result, one mother contacted a national broadcasting company Yle, claiming that “the competitive setup and the criteria seemed unfair, and the group division went against the National Agency for Education's policies on segregation.” She also lamented, “Nobody does things like this anymore these days. Are boys wild and disobedient just because they’re energetic?”

Instead of having boys and girls compete in behavior and tidiness, she suggested rewarding the boys for, say, running a certain distance in the schoolyard as defined by a teacher. This, she argued, would allow them to please the teacher in a different way. Personally, I couldn’t see how this would promote children’s education or learning — unlike the competition at hand.

According to the principal of the criticized school, “The teachers certainly did not intend to act against the curriculum. This was a human error from which we will learn. We are all human and make mistakes.”

Undoubtedly, this was an effort to save face — and perhaps it succeeded. Time will tell.

* * *

To me, however, there was nothing odd or unfair about the competition. Calm and orderly behavior is something that promotes learning in schools. As such, it is an excellent — and learning-relevant — basis for competition, regardless of gender. Moreover, it is an event that especially helps wild boys improve their self-control.

Admittedly, the groups could have been divided without regard to gender, which would have prevented the boys’ mothers from blaming their children’s loss on their gender. But I believe that a competition between genders is the most motivating setup for seven-year-olds — especially for boys.

For this reason, I suspect that the mother who took her complaint to the national media should take a good look in the mirror. After all, the school competition reflected the general perception that mothers have long demanded better behavior and tidiness from their daughters than from their sons. The girls’ victory, therefore, was no great surprise — but hopefully, it offered a valuable lesson not only to the boys in the class but also to their mothers.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Safe Spaces or Freedom of Knowledge?
How to Increase Fertility Rates: A Finnish Solution
The Difference Between Left-Wing and Right-Wing Envy