#päivi räsänen

[hehkuvamyyhapero]

jos räsäskä saa kutsua homoja sairaiksi ja luonnonoikuiksi ja kutsua sitä sananvapaudeksi, niin sitte mäki saan sanoa kristittyjä väkivaltaisiksi hulluiksi ja todeta että uskonnot on homoutta miljoona kertaa luonnottomampia

koska sananvapaus??????

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Whats your view on the Case of Päivi Räsänen that she is not guilty of "hate speech". She says its a win for freedom of speech. Which i partly agree, i also dont think its hatespeech to quote the bible and explain why you dont agree with a certain lifestyle, but i think tolerance (not acceptance) is nice and sometimes you can just shut the fuck up. I also dont comment on other peoples relationship, because its not my relationship. Also i dont feel comfortable with someone from an ideology which has a long history of censorship (blasphemy laws) in the past.

Supporting freedom of speech is super-easy when we agree with what's being said. But that's not why it's there or why it's needed. You don't need freedom of speech when everybody's in agreement and likes what's being said. It's much harder to support it when it's something we strongly disagree with or even find appalling and vile.

There's a distinction between supporting what someone says, and supporting their right to say it. And a further distinction between holding and arguing ideas we might not like, and someone actually inciting or advocating violence or the violation of people's rights. Or being compelled to go along with them. It's okay to be a Xian and to believe that everybody needs salvation through Jesus Christ, but you don't get to go round to your work colleagues and tell them that they need to accept Jesus or burn in hell, even if you actually believe it. It's okay to be a Woke and to believe that the world is controlled by invisible nebulous power forces, but you don't get to insist others be trained to believe the same.

It's not just the right to the ideas you have or believe, but how you go about exercising that right. It's the difference between "speech you hate," and "hate speech," which is supposed to be about targeting and inciting. The problem of late has been conflating - deliberately, as much as inadvertently - the former with the latter.

Reminds me of something Ricky Gervais said:

I'm not tweeting anyone, I'm just tweeting, okay. I don't know who's following me. I've got 12 million followers. I don't know who's following me, they can be following me without me knowing, choose to read my tweet and then take that personally.

That's like going into a town square, seeing a big noticeboard and there's a notice, "guitar lessons," and you go, "but I don't fucking want guitar lessons!"

What's this? There's a number here. Right, call that, right. Are you giving guitar lessons? Yeah? I don't fucking want any!

Fine, it's not for you then, just walk away. Don't worry about it.

The culture of victimhood has reframed disagreement as targeting or incitement. Linda Sarsour, Sharia-enthusiast and known pathological liar, has claimed that criticism of Islam is a denial of the right of Muslims to exist. It's not even like, "I'm offended so they're wrong." It's "I'm offended, so they shouldn't be allowed to say it."

I haven't been able to find what Räsänen actually wrote, only various reporting about the case.

But I would argue similar to things I've said before about my own criticism of Islam. I'm allowed to hold anti-Islam views. I can write about them. I can make my arguments and put forth my evidence, quote the scripture, etc. But I don't get to call for Muslims to be hunted down and killed, or to violate their right to their religion. That doesn't mean I can't insist they be held to the same standards as everyone else with regard to how they practice it. They don't get to block roads while praying. They don't get to hang their daughters upside down in a garage to beat their feet for failing to properly recite the quran. The laws of the land still apply.

There's a few reasons why that's important.

There's a liberal principle that laws that are applicable to a society should be created such that you would accept those laws regardless of what part you play in that society: rich, poor, male, female, black, white. (Of course, "antiracism™" and CRT activists explicitly object to such neutrality.)

Or to put it another way, rules you use to control someone else's speech can be used by them to control yours. Political parties do not remain in office forever - except in a dictatorship - and you don't want to create or give them the weapon that they can use against you.

I've been watching what's been going on in Ireland, and as far as I can tell, it's a disaster in the making. Especially the "for the greater good" language. Not only is this an ominous portent of authoritarianism, but even if this isn't misused by its creators, they will not hold office forever. You create a censorship law to silence your enemies, and at the next change of government, they'll use the same laws to silence you. For the greater good.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/ireland-on-the-verge-of-establishing-an-oppressive-censorship-regime/

Despite superficial similarities to First Amendment jurisprudence in the U.S., the proposed Irish hate-speech statute would all but guarantee its politicized use.

Biden's government tried to set up their own Ministry of Truth, to be headed by someone who was both dangerously unqualified and, much more concerningly, an activist and herself a spreader of disinformation. But again, the ruling party inevitably changes. Maybe not at the next major election, but at some point. And that puts a Ministry of Truth into your opposition's hands, to now wield it against you.

As Christopher Hitchens opined:

"Every time you violate, or propose to violate, the right to free speech of someone else, you in potentia, you’re making a rod for your own back. Because, to whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor? … To whom you would give the job of deciding for you? Relieve you from the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear? Do you know anyone? Hands up, do you know anyone to whom you'd give this job? Does anyone have a nominee?"

Don't martyr your opponents. If you silence them, it just makes them noble sacrifices for the cause. (You can't always stop others from martyring themselves.) Remember that it's not just religionists who are prone to venerating martyrs.

It becomes "secret knowledge they don't want you to know" and thus forbidden and attractive. The Streisand effect is a real thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead backfires by increasing awareness of that information. It is named after American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph of her cliff-top residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew far greater attention to the heretofore obscure photograph in 2003.

And it'll just go underground anyway, away from where you can see it, monitor it and deal with it. Positioning people outside of, and in opposition to society, never results in anything good. It's better to let them voluntarily tell you what they're up to, which also makes it easier for you to show others what they're doing.

Like I say, short of actual incitement, libel, etc, things that are already illegal anyway.

This is a long train-of-thought way of saying that I don't have to like what Räsänen has to say, but she has the right to her beliefs, to write about and talk about those beliefs, as long as doing so doesn't violate the rights of others. Including not violating their right to hear people she doesn't like. And not being offended, having to like what she says, is not itself a right.

“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn’t exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.” -- Salman Rushdie

But we have the same right has her: to have a different idea, to argue it in response to her - even if she finds that offensive - or even to ignore her entirely.

[politiikkameemit]

[ntgospel]

Ministério Público multa e censura parlamentar cristã na Finlândia

Confira a novidade em https://ntgospel.com/noticias/perseguicao-religiosa/ministerio-publico-multa-e-censura-parlamentar-crista-na-finlandia

Ministério Público multa e censura parlamentar cristã na Finlândia

A saga legal da parlamentar finlandesa Päivi Räsänen, que agora enfrenta seu terceiro julgamento devido a críticas feitas ao “mês do orgulho” LGBT pela Igreja Luterana Finlandesa, levanta sérias preocupações sobre a liberdade de expressão e religiosa na Finlândia e além.

Embora Räsänen tenha sido absolvida duas vezes por tribunais inferiores, o Ministério Público continua a apelar contra essas decisões, buscando multas pesadas e censura para a parlamentar e para o Bispo Pohjola. Essa persistência em prosseguir com acusações apesar de múltiplas absolvições é alarmante e sugere um clima de censura e intolerância em relação a opiniões divergentes.

A situação de Räsänen não é um caso isolado. Em toda a Europa, vemos um aumento da repressão ao discurso crítico sobre questões LGBT e uma tendência preocupante de governos em punir aqueles que expressam pontos de vista baseados em suas crenças religiosas. O caso do padre católico Matthieu Raffray na França e o de Matthew Grech em Malta são exemplos adicionais dessa tendência.

Segundo o Gospel Prime, esses acontecimentos levantam questões fundamentais sobre liberdade de expressão e liberdade religiosa em democracias ocidentais. A capacidade de expressar livremente opiniões, especialmente aquelas fundamentadas em convicções religiosas, é um pilar essencial da democracia e deve ser protegida. A perseguição de indivíduos por expressarem suas crenças, mesmo que contrárias à ortodoxia dominante, é um sintoma alarmante de um ambiente de intolerância e autoritarismo.

[cuntstable]

btw in case anyone wants to hear good news for a change finland just changed its trans laws so that a persons legal gender is based on self-determination now and also getting trans-healthcare doesnt require forced sterilization anymore…. extremely rare W for this shithole of a nation

[sademeow]

tää on sit kokonaan vitsi älkää vetäkö herneitä tai muitakaan palkokasveja nenään okei kaveri kehotti postaamaan tän tänne syyttäkää sitä

Riikka Purra paiskasi työhuoneensa oven kiinni raivoa tihkuen. Hän oli ollut torilla kertomassa hyvää hyvyyttään tekemistään leikkauksista ja vielä kehottanut Suomen nuorisoa, maan tulevaisuutta, menemään töihin. Sitten kaikki olivatkin uutisoineet tapahtuneesta syyttävään sävyyn. Miten he kehtaavat! Riikka puhisi. "Yritän kaikkeni mutta mikään ei kelpaa. Pitäisköhän lähteä kaljoittelemaan Teemun kanssa, se ymmärtää mua." Äkisti oveen koputettiin. Riikka nosti päätään. "Mm, sisään?"

Oven avasi Päivi Räsänen. Riikka ei voinut kuin hymyillä hieman. Hän tunsi kummallisen poltteen poskillaan, jonka hän nykyään aina tunsi nähdessään Päivin. Ehkä se oli iloa siitä, että hänellä oli niin samanhenkinen nainen työtoverina. "Mikäs sua nyt risoo? Ota tästä." Päivi heitti Riikan pöydälle Raamatun. "Tää auttaa mua aina kun ottaa päähän tää maan tilanne. Kyllä sillon kun mä olin nuori niin sitä vaan mentiin töihin eikä vikisty mistään masennuksista. On se saamatonta tää nuoriso."

Riikka nyökkäili ja hieroi ohimoaan. "Mä tänään ystävällisesti kehotin et menisivät töihin mut aivan kun olisin niitä uhkaillut helvettiin joutumisella tai jollain kun suuttuivat niin. Kuulemma ei sais enempää leikkailla."Päivi otti askeleen edemmäs ja siveli kädellään Riikan leukaa. "Eikös me kultsi sovittu, et jätetään se saksittaminen lesboille?" Hän hymyili ja hymy vain kasvoi, kun Riikan kasvoille nousi helakanpunainen hehku. "Mitä, ootko säkin nykyään joku lepakko? Pakko myöntää, aika hottista. Mä vaan oon julkisuudenkuvan vuoks näin raivohetero, saa kato enemmän viewsejä ja sillee." Päivi kumartui edemmäs. "Oikeesti mä oon rakastanu sua koko tän ajan." Riikka henkäisi, aivan häkeltyneenä koko tilanteesta. Ennen kuin hän ehti mitään tekemään painoi Päivi huulensa vasten hänen huuliaan. Naisen huulet olivat keski-ikäisen huuliksi yllättävän pehmeät ja niin makoisat. Päivin kädet alkoivat seikkailla Riikan valkoisella puserolla ja lopulta eksyivät sen alle.

sori ei enempää (100 likee tai mitä tääl ikin onkaan ja kakkos osa tulille tai jotain)

[yet-another-suomi-blogi]

***

ja tälle sanon että

[kriisipiirakka]

Parhaani mukaan yritin, mutta raamattu ei näytä kieltävän mitään pringles-muroista.

Rasvan ja veren syöminen on kielletty (3. Mooseksen kirja 17), mutta se tarkoittaa vain eläimen rasvaa, ei kasvirasvoja tai maidossa esiintyvää rasvaa.

Aimo lista eläimiä on kielletty syömästä (5. Mooseksen kirja 14 (sisältäen, mutta ei rajoittuen äyriäiset, koirat, tamaanit ja lokit), mutta pringlesit ovat vegaanisia.

Maitotuotteita ja lihaa ei saa sekoittaa (Exodus 23:19), mutta ks. edellinen kohta. Lihapullamurot on siis kielletty.

Ainoa asia mihin voidaan puuttua on, jos nuo Pringles-murot on tarkoitettu uhrilahjaksi ja syöjä on rituaalisesti epäpuhdas, niin sitten on kielletty.

nää on ihan ku murot mut suolaset semmoset

[varahai]

kun Päivi Räsänen sanoo, että kännissä ja läpällä voi viestitellä rasistisia vahingossa ja kokoomusnuoret on hallituksen selkäranka

[teal-skull]

So excited for the music video because I know it will be absolut gold but honestly can't wait the finnish media and public outcry that is bound to happen.

Like Helsingin Sanomat already gave a bad review to the song based on the Olympic stadium live performance.

Parents will ask why he isn't kid friendly

Homophobes will complain that it's too gay (I wanna see Päivi Räsänen loose her fucking mind over this mv tbh)

And others will complain about every minor detail they disagree with because this was not what they expected from the famous cha cha cha man.

Finnish people know how to be negative and criticize what some one else is doing.

[kinuskikakku]

Mietin nyt vähän tätä piispainkokouksen keskustelua ja Päivi Räsäsen mahdollista eroa kirkosta.

Oletan et tää piispainkokouksen mahdollinen päätös samaa sukupuolta olevien parien vihkimisestä on vain ev.-lut. -asia?

Joten Päivillä on yhä mahis vaihtaa kirkkokuntaa kai. Ortodoksi on kai liian idästä sille mut katolinen Räsänen ois aika juttu. Tai se vois liittyä johonkin kilttiin/lahkoon. Tai se vois perustaa oman lahkon!

En kuitenkaan usko et me homot saadaan sitä puskettua ateismiin.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Marxian-woke Finnish bureaucrats are set to pursue Päivi Räsänen for a third time.

The Christian, grandmother, and former MP, is facing a 3rd round of attempts by fanatical LGBTQ+ identifying activist bureaucrats to force her compliance.

They’ve spectacularly lost two high-profile cases against her, but they want the lawfare precedent...

[beardedmrbean]

Two Finnish Christian leaders have beaten hate speech charges filed against them for the second time.

Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen – a 62-year-old medical doctor and grandmother of seven – and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola were again found not guilty of hate speech by a court of appeals in Helsinki.

"I am deeply relieved. The court has fully endorsed and upheld the decision of the district court, which recognized everyone’s right to free speech," said Räsänen.

She continued, "It isn’t a crime to tweet a Bible verse, or to engage in public discourse with a Christian perspective. The attempts made to prosecute me for expressing my beliefs have resulted in an immensely trying four years, but my hope is that the result will stand as a key precedent to protect the human right to free speech."

The trial was a second attempt by state prosecutor Anu Mantila to punish the two Christians for intolerance toward homosexuality.

"You can cite the Bible, but it is Räsänen’s interpretation and opinion about the Bible verses that are criminal," Mantila claimed during the appeal trial.

The prosecution characterized Räsänen's sharing of a Bible verse against homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27) and a 2004 pamphlet titled "Male and Female He Created Them: Homosexual Relations Challenge the Christian Concept of Humanity" as intended to cause intolerance, contempt and hatred toward homosexuals.

Räsänen and Pohjola were originally acquitted in March 2022 – until the prosecution took the issue to the court of appeals in September 2023 for a second attempt at conviction.

The Court of Appeals ruled this week that it "has no reason, on the basis of the evidence received at the main hearing, to assess the case in any respect differently from the District Court. There is therefore no reason to alter the final result of the District Court’s judgment."

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, has been involved in international efforts to defend Räsänen and Pohjola. He celebrated the second victory in Finnish court as a triumph for the shared value of free expression.

"A guilty verdict would have criminalized Christianity, silenced Christians, stifled religious freedom across Europe, and catalyzed further attacks on the foundations of Western Civilization," Roy told Fox News Digital.

He continued, "I thank God for this verdict, for Päivi Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola's courage in defense of the Gospel, and for the efforts of Alliance Defending Freedom International and other groups like Family Research Council for their hard work and advocacy on this case."

Räsänen said the trial has a "deterrent effect of curtailing freedom of expression and religion."

"If writings based on biblical teachings were to be condemned, that would mean a serious restriction of freedom of religion. It is natural that this would raise concerns among Christians both in Finland and internationally," she said.

Prosecutors may still attempt to take the issue even higher up the system to the Supreme Court of Finland for a third and final decision.

[punalippulaiva]

Ensinnäkin jes, mutta kiinnittäisin huomionne myös tähän nostoon:

Torstai-iltana vyyhti sai lisäkierroksia, kun kristillisdemokraattien Päivi Räsänen nosti esiin Junnilan aiemman kirjallisen kysymyksen "ilmastoabortista" keinona hillitä väestönkasvua.

VITUN PÄIVI RÄSÄNEN KAIVOI SEN VIIMEISEN NIITIN? :D

Mua myös lämmittää, että päivän uutisissa Lauri Kattelus on eronnut kokoomuksesta. Se ei toki ole mikään merkittävä politiikko valtakunnantasolla, mutta toivottavasti ensimmäinen useammasta.

[oodlenoodleroodle]

Parliamentary elections in Finland are this spring!

If you are eligible to vote (you should have gotten a letter telling you that you are) please go vote!

You are eligible if you are a citizen. Non-citizens are eligible to vote only in Municipal Elections, and non-Finnish EU-citizens also in the EU elections.

There is no voter registration in Finland, you are automatically eligible in the district your address is registered to in Maistraatti.

If you are a Finnish citizen living abroad, you are still eligible to vote too.

Why vote?

Basic Finns are still a problem for people who care about gay rights or people of color. Kokoomus is an even bigger problem for people who care about workers rights and poor people.

The Finnish system divides power pretty evenly, so pretty much every vote does actually count. The seats are allocated to parties so as long as the party you vote for gets enough votes for at least one seat, you helped elect that one representative, even if you voted for someone else within the same party.

The system also means that it is possible to vote tactically against another party, if you don't have strong feelings about who should be in charge. The end result will always be a coalition, aka a government with several different parties in it. So even though there is no hope that the Christian Democrats could be the biggest party, they can get into a coalition and small parties in coalitions do have the power to bargain for things that they care about, and fucking Päivi Räsänen only cares about harming LGBT+ people :/

Who to vote for?

If you need any help figuring this system out, you can reach out to me in Finnish, English or Swedish. If you tell me which district you live in (for example Uudenmaan vaalipiiri) and what you care about, I can give you pointers on how to approach it.

Vaalikone can be useful, but most of those are made by right-leaning media, so the questions are asked from a particular angle. Plus with yes-or-no questions you might end up answering yes for completely opposite reasons, so it's a good idea to read what the candidates wrote as reasons for their answers.

And if you want me to describe the process of voting in order to feel less anxious about it, that I can also do.

If you reblog this post with questions or commentary you want me to see, please @-tag me so that I get an email notification.

-

Could you please reblog even if you aren't Finnish in case you have Finnish followers?