In the ever-expanding mental void of “hate crime” legislation, Finnish mind-control appears to be one of the big black holes.
“Hate crime,” the rarely-questioned, nearly redundant term which sees violent crimes punished more harshly if politicians claim the accused was motivated by “hate” (however they want to define it), where the very use of the term “hate” presses upon the public a sense of constant nervousness and mental self-policing to conform with what is deemed acceptable by the state.
How does it work? In practice, it looks like what’s happening to Christian Democrat Party member Päivi Räsänen who, as reported by the Helsinki Times and Fox News, is being investigated for an alleged “hate crime” because she posted a Bible quote and a question about sin on Facebook.
Releasing a photo of Romans 1:24-27 from the Bible, which describe same-sex relationships as shameful, she wrote:
The Church of which I am a member has announced to be the official partner of the set Helsinki Pride 2019 How does the church's doctrine, the Bible, fit together with the cause where shame and sin are raised as a topic of pride?
Better call the cops, someone expressed her opinion and faith -- and the “hateful” portion of the Bible she quoted reads:
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
If Räsänen had written a review of a film, book, or song, and said the offering was “shameful”, or used the word “vile” to describe something, would the expression of her belief be a violent act against the writer, director, or singer/band?
Of course not. But with “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation – even with the use of the terms, sans legislation – postmodernist collectivists wield powerful linguistic tools to purge any kind of thought the collective deems unacceptable. Ideological conformity is mandatory, and becomes internally imposed. Self-censorship, self-policing, even if statutes aren’t passed, become the norm through the very ubiquity of the amorphous terms "hate crime" and "hate speech" within the popular vernacular.
In the mid-1800s, John Stuart Mill noticed that numerous Western societies were losing track of the fundamental freedom of speech. And in his important pamphlet, “On Liberty”, Mill correctly argued that all peaceful speech – right or wrong – was important. Not only should one not impose a penalty on others that one would not want imposed on himself or herself, debating purveyors of incorrect theories and argumentation helps strengthen arguments for the truth.
No agent of the state should be legally focused on any opinion Räsänen offered. Whether her opinions are right, wrong, a mix, misread, or anything else is irrelevant. She made no criminal threat against anyone.
Yet she is being investigated by the state. She is being threatened by the state. Readers of “1984” by George Orwell might be familiar with this upside-down world, and the sense of paranoia felt by protagonist Winston Smith as he hid conversations and even tried to control his own thoughts, lest they sneak out and betray him for “WrongThink.”
With regard to the investigation, the politician Tweeted saying, 'I am not concerned on my part, as I trust this will not move on to the prosecutor. However, I am concerned if quoting the Bible is considered even ‘slightly’ illegal. I hope this won't lead to self-censorship among Christians. Rom. 1:24–27.'
So that Christians, agnostics, folks who might dislike Christians, folks who might think homosexuality is not accepted enough, folks who believe its boosters have become militant – so that everyone understands the principle at stake, it is important to stress to our neighbors that the content or direction of Räsänen’s opinions are irrelevant. She has an inherent right to speak about her beliefs and what she thinks of as right and wrong, vile and shameful, acceptable by God, or sinful, Biblical, or heretical.
One of the key lessons about the very book from which she quoted is that we humans should not judge others lest we are prepared to be judged.
Räsänen is known for her outspoken defense of orthodox Christian views when it comes to sensitive aspects such as marriage and abortion. But after public outrage and being labeled as a “homophobic” for her comments, Räsänen responded by saying that 'It is not right to label Christian conviction as phobia.'
In the realm of public opinion, we should be able to debate and test our positions without being recklessly labeled “phobic” or having agents of the state attack us. In fact, as John Stuart Mill pointed out over a century ago, it is that growing societal tendency to knee-jerkedly label someone as thoughtless, phobic, angry, sexist, or hateful that allows some social groups to gain state power over others.
Precisely as it has happened in Finland.
There is no end in sight. Not as long as people are blind to the principle of free speech and they prefer to exhalt the demonic light of the state and its use of force to silence dissent and mandate conformity and “fix peoples’ thinking.”