The Helsingin Sanomat has written about some British & Irish paving labourers who apparently have not had “trouble finding work without speaking any Finnish”. So that proves false the assumption Finns are discriminating xenophobes and racists. Doing a paving job for 3500, sans receipt, when the Finnish quote is 8500-10K and the material cost alone is between 2-3K though might have something to do with the equation. Also the claim that Finnish officials are xenophobes and racists is proven wrong, as if a local Finnish resident would be driving drunk, stealing and doing black labor without paying the social fees and VAT; they’d be in serious trouble. But EU citizens are free to do whatever they effin please. So apparently there is a “need for workers” in Finland indeed and the EU has once again proven to be the source of multiculturalism that enriches the nation. Again three basic theses regarding immigrants in Finland have been proven wrong. I find this quite hilarious, though there’s an owner of a campsite full of complaining Finns (as opposed to whining foreigners) that might not think I am so funny.

Cliff notes: Snatch in Järvenpää

We’ve always suspected it, but now we have proof. The Finnish europarliamentarian Anneli Jäättenmäki had to get a new passport. Reason being her old one got “lost” in somewhere between the Europarliament and the Indian Embassy. Neither party has it. As the Ilta-Sanomat says

According to Jäätteenmäki, thefts are quite usual in the EU-parliament. The member’s “boxes” where materials are transferred between Brussels and Strassbourg are missing things, such as cameras and laptops.

- “The police can not investigate the thefts, as they do not have access to the EU-parliament” says Jäättenmäki

Not only the idiotic and expensive dual seating and travelling between Brussels and Strassbourg, but also there is then nobody with jurisdiction to investigate either… Makes you wonder who designed the system.

Nice to see Finland in yesterday’s New York Times. And it’s about a topic that touches every Finn so dearly, wolves…

Finland, which joined the European Union in 1995, came under criticism that its hunting practices did not mesh with European habitat directives. So in 2001, the Finnish government tightened its hunting laws to meet European Union standards. Finnish law now states that every kill must be covered by a permit and restricts the number of permits to about 10 percent of a particular predator’s known numbers.

Seven years later, the populations of wolves, lynxes, brown bears and wolverines in Finland have grown substantially, according to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Helsinki. In this area, the number of wolves has roughly tripled since 1996, and attacks on reindeer herds have increased more than threefold in the past 10 years.

[...]Asko Moilanen, 40, a third-generation herder, said that because of his losses to predators over the past three years, his income from reindeer has been reduced to almost nothing. “Either we should be allowed to hunt or they should pay compensation for the real losses,” he said. “It affects my whole life and my family.

[...]In much of Finland, reindeer hold a hallowed place in the collective imagination, perhaps akin to the buffalo in the history of the American West.

Before we discuss illegal police searches, here’s an interesting side note to introduce the topic: In Finland, the Names Act limits parents’ choices in naming their offspring; only names with historical and ethnic relevance are accepted as valid entries. In this case, parents were denied their preference, so they sued in the The European Court of Human Rights and won…

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a judgement on a violation of Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human rights, following the refusal of the Finnish authorities to register the forename Axl Mick for the applicants’ son.

I assume this is an amalgam of the names Axl Rose and Mick Jagger. But only the parents know for sure.

Whereas the Names Act has been eased somewhat since 1999 when this case was first brought to The Court, there might be reason to believe that Finland is in conflict with Article 8 on another, perhaps more serious ground. Therefore, I would like to direct your attention to Article 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights, to which Finland is a signatory:

ARTICLE 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Imagine that you are stopped for suspicion of speeding, and the police demand to follow you home and rifle-through your personal files and data. Then, everything from pay records to investment and bank statements are used for determining the amount your fine should be.

In the United States, this would be considered “Illegal Search and Seizure” by police. The right to privacy is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Obviously, Finland is not the United States, so its residents can’t benefit from Fourth Amendment protections. But Finland did sign the aforementioned European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantees everyone “the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right…”

The wording of Article 8 seems remarkably similar to the Fourth Amendment and is apparently meant to span an even broader range of circumstances. After all, The European Court of Human Rights determined that the naming of a person’s child is covered under Article 8’s definition. So, perhaps it is no big stretch to assume that a person’s personal financial data is also covered.

But that’s not all. Let’s consider that Article 8 of the the European Convention of Human Rights is grounded in Article 12 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Finland is also a signatory. It reads:

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Of course, for the most part, this “interference with privacy” in Finland is done electronically; not via paper correspondence. Nonetheless, it’s an invasion of privacy. And in my opinion, the practice breaches both, Articles 8 & 12 of their respective conventions. It will be interesting to see if the newly elected Parliament addresses this impropriety or whether it’s yet another matter that needs to be tested by The European Court of Human Rights.

After all, if you’re an educated and talented professional who is considering a move to Finland, wouldn’t you expect to receive all the human rights protections granted to you by the European Union and United Nations?

And on a more personal level, would you want your private financial details closely examined by the average traffic cop? For a speeding ticket?

If you are interested in further reading, here is an excellent reference on this topic and more.