The Staring at Young Girls Revealed the Change in Finnish Society

Fifteen-year-old girls were on a train journey of about 500 kilometers in Finland. They had reserved seats around a table, but when they arrived, a man was sitting there with his suitcase.

The girls had asked the man to move his suitcase, at which point, according to them, he had rolled his eyes. Despite their request, the suitcase remained in their way, preventing one of them from sitting properly in her seat.

Later, the man had openly stared at the girls from head to toe, which they found extremely distressing. Then he took out his phone and stated that the young girls represented the wrong religion.

Eventually, the girls grew tired of the man’s staring and left their seats. As a result, they had to stand for several hours because they did not want to sit next to the man.

The news did not specify what kind of man he was. However, the comment about religion and the staring suggest—at least in my mind—that he was neither Finnish nor of European background, but rather a Muslim or someone from a developing country. This is also indicated by the fact that the Finnish newspaper—Ilta-Sanomat—did not deem it necessary to provide any further details about the man.

If—and when—I am right, this case is yet another example of the change taking place throughout Western Europe. As a result, a safe society based on good manners and rules is already becoming nothing more than a memory of the past.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gun Violence in Brussels After Swedish Massacre
Who Tried to Abduct a Two-Year-Old Child from Their Grandmother?
Finnish Society Adopts Medieval Characteristics

Police Ban Public Fight Between Neo-Nazis and Street Gangs in Finland

Humanitarian immigration has led to the polarization of Western societies. This is also the case in Finland, which has, in many ways, followed in Sweden's footsteps, repeating the mistakes made there one after another.

In this context, an interesting piece of news emerged, reporting that Finnish neo-Nazis and street gang members were planning an event where they could fight each other. The matches would end with a knockout, surrender, or interruption. Participants could kick opponents who were down on the ground, and there would be no rest rounds. However, eye-gouging and causing damage to areas such as the groin would not be allowed.

The idea of the event was essentially a brutal bare-knuckle fight, and the organizer believed that bringing opposing groups together in the same event could reduce confrontation. Tickets for the fight had already been sold, and the organizer expressed a desire to turn such fights into international events.

However, the authorities intervened and banned the event, stating that, according to the police, "it did not appear to be a sports event… The compliance with rules and the health risks involved in the event could potentially constitute a criminal offense."

As a result, Finland will not follow Sweden's example in this case. In Sweden, such matches have reportedly already been held. However, I am not aware of any data on the extent of health consequences or the alleged reduction in conflict between neo-Nazis and street gangs. In any case, it’s a relief that Finland refrains from adopting every foolish idea the Swedish society might offer.

Women full of testosterone

Sometimes it feels like the world has gone crazy. This morning, I felt that way when I noticed a headline in a Finnish afternoon newspaper stating that transgender women were dominating a volleyball game in Canada.

According to the article, there were five transgender women playing in the women's game, all of whom "are said to be playing in the women's league without having undergone any hormone treatment or gender reassignment surgery." In other words, in Canadian women's volleyball, there are men with testosterone playing with all their male anatomy.

These men also have strength. So much so that their spikes cause concussions and other health damages when they hit the heads of the opposing women.

* * *

I have nothing against people's diversity. Everyone can be in a free country - such as Canada or Finland - exactly as they wish. Even if that means a man dressed as a woman or a transgender woman who has undergone hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery.

This freedom extends exactly so far as not to cause undue harm to others. In women's sports, this means that men dressed as women or even trans women who have undergone testosterone-boosting treatments during adolescence should not be allowed to compete.

World sports leaders should take this matter seriously. If not for the sake of women's equality - which is violated by individuals who compete against them with the strength of male muscles - then at least for the sake of the interest in their sports, and thus their viability.

It's clear that volleyball players like those I described in the beginning wouldn't inspire girls to take up the sport, nor would they inspire spectators to watch. And I doubt that such competitions, at least in the case of women's sports, would even draw an audience.

But of course, national and international sports organizations make their own decisions. Both in Finland and Canada. And also at the international level.

The original though in Finnish:
Testosteronia pullistelevat naiset

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
"Woke" pushes American science academies to favor women in their membership selections
Discrimination against women?
The activists sought excitement and a boost to their self-esteem in the Stockholm Diamond League

The European Parliament should bring down the von der Leyen Commission

Christine Schneider, a member of the largest group in the European Parliament, the EPP, has reportedly claimed that the European Commission, particularly the Commissioner for the Environment, Frans Timmermans, had acted flagrantly beyond their powers in pushing for the adoption of their proposed restoration regulation. This was because the Department of Environment had sent a lobbying document listing means of influence for individuals and companies to persuade MEPs to vote in favor of the proposed regulation.

According to Schneider, the Commission had realized that their proposal was not receiving favorable support, so "they sought to influence Members of Parliament" through lobbyists. And, of course, this is not in line with the division of powers among EU institutions.

Among these institutions, the European Council, informally known as the EU summit, is formally the highest. It consists of the heads of state or government of the European Union (EU) member states and the President of the Commission. Its task is to provide the necessary impetus for the development of the EU and define general political guidelines. It is the highest political body of the EU and meets four times a year to outline key political directions and develop actions.

The Council of the European Union represents the governments of the member states and is the EU's main decision-making body. It legislates together with the Parliament, approves the budget in collaboration with the Parliament, is primarily responsible for the Union's foreign and security policy, and convenes in ten different configurations depending on the matter at hand.

Each meeting is attended by one minister from each member country, depending on the topic being discussed. However, in voting, ministers from different member states have different numbers of votes at their disposal, with larger states having more votes and smaller states having fewer votes.

The Commission, in turn, consists of around 30 commissioners who are selected after the EU elections and must be approved by the Parliament. One commissioner is chosen from each member state, and their task is to represent the interests of the entire Union.

For this purpose, the Commission has the power of initiative and implementation in the Union. It monitors the use of funds, ensures compliance with EU laws, and keeps the entire Union running with the help of commissioners and officials. Member states select their own commissioners, whose term lasts for five years, and decisions are made through majority voting.

Then there is the European Parliament, which theoretically represents EU citizens and is elected every 5 years through elections. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) work as part of European political parties and, together with the Council of Ministers, legislate.

However, the Parliament does not have the power of initiative, but it has the power to dismiss the Commission.

In this sense, the Timmermans´ actions highlighted by Schneider are indeed highly undemocratic and contrary to the power structures of the EU. Therefore, I believe that in this situation, the European Parliament should act decisively and not only reject the preliminary proposal but also bring down the entire Commission, which has proven to be rotten under Ursula von der Leyen's leadership.

This measure would restore the division of powers within the EU's agreed-upon framework and, at the same time, increase citizens' trust in the Union as a whole.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Daniel Freund demanded a ban to Viktor Orbán 
The European Commission appears unreliable as a decision-maker to the Finns
Fair policy will build a strong Union

Daniel Freund demanded a ban to Viktor Orbán

A totalitarian society can be recognized by the fact that those in power disregard agreed-upon rules when the resulting decisions would be unpleasant. This came to my mind when reading about the debate in the European Parliament, where an attempt was made to prevent Hungary from assuming the rotating presidency of the EU.

I understand that Hungary does not represent the mainstream of the EU but rather one of its extreme ends. However, this does not justify the violation of rules; it may justify, at most, a political process to change the system. 

In this case, such a goal could be to place member states in different positions, where the presidency would only apply to a subset of countries. And if such a decision were to be made, it would undoubtedly lead to the disintegration of the EU.

Therefore, the attack by Germany's Green Party member Daniel Freund against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán should be seen primarily as an expression of totalitarian thinking - or even an echo from Germany 80 years ago. 

Freund demanded a ban on Orbán entering the European Parliament if Hungary were to become the presiding country. Such an initiative is exactly the kind of fanatic ranting that we do not need in the European Parliament. 

Instead, it is necessary to adhere to collectively agreed democratic rules, even when the outcome is not pleasing. Only by acting in this way can the EU remain a democratic community, where all nations and citizens have equal rights.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The European Commission appears unreliable as a decision-maker to the Finns
Fair policy will build a strong Union
Share of EU recovery funds will turn attitudes more negative