Prodos blogger accused of 'hate speech', police interrogation Options

[ewv]

A blog hosted by Prodos' Thinker to Thinker blogger is under investigation by police for anti-multiculturalist 'hate speech'. The blog is in Finnish, so most of us can't read it, but here is the Prodos announcement:

Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 06:47:24 -0700
From: Prodos

Dear Fellow Bloggers,

A quick note to inform you that a THINKER TO THINKER blogger
is to be interrogated by the police for "hate speech" on his blog.

His "thought crimes" consist of:

- Exposing the violent nature of Islam
- Supporting the USA, Israel, and Western Values

As soon as the THINKER TO THINKER blogger gives me permission to divulge
his details I'll let you know immediately.

I look forward to your support.

Best Wishes,

PRODOS

Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 07:54:06 -0700
From: Prodos

Dear Friends,

Our fellow Thought Criminal is ...

Mikko Ellila of Finland

... who’s blog is at:

http://mikkoellila.thinkertothinker.com

(It's not in English)

I've copied my initial reply to Mikko, which
includes his original note to me, @
http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/?p=323

There's also a link there to blog: Gates of Vienna,
which has picked up on this matter.

We are with you Mikko!

Best Wishes,

PRODOS

http://thinkertothinker.com

Thought Crimes "R" Us

[RobC]

"some" racist notions? Well, as long as you are critical. That's the main thing.

[prodos]

"some" racist notions? Well, as long as you are critical. That's the main thing.

I'm slow to judge.

I'm happy to give Mikko Ellila/Ellilän the opportunity to make his case - especially since I've come across his erroneous line of reasoning before.

For instance ...

Years ago, when I was a radio presenter at 3 WRB, I was doing a show about Asian immigration - mainly Vietnamese - into Australia. I supported such immigration and thought it was morally right as well as beneficial to the country.

A listener phoned in to say he believed there were too many Vietnamese coming in and they were creating "ghettos" and draining the country's economy.

I posed a few questions to him, such as:

• What about those Vietnamese who ran shops or small factories and weren't on the dole?
• What about the observation that the children of migrants tend to marry just as much outside their parent's nationality as inside it? For instance, the children of Greek parents married Anglo Aussies, etc.
• Is it reasonable or not that people coming in to a country, who look different, can't speak the language well, are unsure about the laws and cultural norms, etc. - wouldn't they, at least for a while, want to mix with "their own kind"?
• What about those who create good and/or cheap products that are available to all?
• Etc.

After about 5 minutes I asked him: Well, what do you think about Asians coming in to Australia?

He replied: "Well, I suppose it's okay."

Some other radio presenter would have simply branded him as a beyond-the-pale "racist".

Another interesting example I came across in my ongoing research on Thomas Jefferson were his observations and reflections on Negroes.

In one of his letters, Jefferson wrote:

I have supposed the black man in his present state might not be [equal to the white man]; but it would be hazardous to affirm that equally cultivated for a few generations, he would not become so.

Thomas Jefferson to Chastellux, 1785. ME 5:6, Papers 8:186

In Australia, it is a statistical fact that there are proportionally more Aborigines and Muslims in jail than "Anglos".

Would it be racist for someone to generalise from this that "there's something about these races" that makes them more prone to criminality?

Yes, it would be racist.

On the other hand, is someone who believes such a notion closed or hostile to facts?
Some people would be closed, blind, even nihilistic. Others would just be mistaken.

If Justice - treating a person as he/she deserves - is my aim, it's important to me not to clump these two vastly different types together. To do so would resemble the error of the racist.

That's some of the background to my thinking, explaining why I refered to Mikko's assertions as containing "some" racist notions.

I welcome debate.

Best Wishes.

[RobC]

I'm happy to give Mikko Ellila/Ellilän the opportunity to make his case - especially since I've come across his erroneous line of reasoning before.

...

On the other hand, is someone who believes such a notion closed or hostile to facts?
Some people would be closed, blind, even nihilistic. Others would just be mistaken.

If Justice - treating a person as he/she deserves - is my aim, it's important to me not to clump these two vastly different types together. To do so would resemble the error of the racist.

That's some of the background to my thinking, explaining why I refered to Mikko's assertions as containing "some" racist notions.

A long racist diatribe tends to lead one to conclude the source is racist. His errors in thinking are plain, and the fact of whether he is open to persuasion to views more consistent with reality or not is largely beside the point. One may indeed take cognizance of that fact when concluding and finalising ones judgment based on the evidence at hand, but not forgo such judgment because of it.

It seems the difference of opinion may be the weight we put on the possibility that Mikko is open to such persuasion. I ascribe it little importance. When such persuasion happens, and such persuasion is successful... Mikko may possibly make a future public rectification of his views. At such a time I will reevaluate such judgments as I have made of him.

As far as justice goes: To label the blog post of Mikko Ellila/Ellilän as racist does indeed take thought to fully understand his stance and arguments (or lack thereof) and the definition of racism, and the forms it may take. I for one found it more consistent with Tribalism and not strictly racism. But as its the same error, I left it be. And indeed I did not ascribe him the same moral equivalence of the head of the KKK, or a Neo-Nazi (or even the past ones).

What I took exception to was the understating of the blog post as "containing 'some' racist notions" when the entire post was almost nothing but a long rant against Asians, Africans, and Arabs and for Europeans and Americans, with no indication of the differentiation of individuals within that geographical area/racial trait. What a number of people who share an insignificant trait like skin colour, or a geographical area of birth, have done proves and indicates nothing about what the NEXT one will do.

And that is the background to my thinking on the topic, and why I made the original post. It was somewhat flippant, and in context should have consisted of a full outlining of my views on the topic. My attempt to rectify that error is this post.

As far as anything else goes, my best wishes to you and Mikko in your defense of Free Speech.