JUSSI Halla-aho, an independent member of the Helsinki City Council elected to the council on the True Finns ticket, plans to appeal against his recent conviction of violating the sanctity of religion.
Jussi Halla-aho
The Helsinki District Court fined him 330 Euros.
The right-wing politician who runs a popular blog insists that he did not intend to hurt anyone, and said:
The indictment is wrong. Violating the sanctity of religion requires an intent to hurt.
Soon after the sentence was passed, Halla-aho commented on the decision on an Internet message board. At the same time he repeated the view that got him fined.
In my opinion Islam really is a religion that sanctifies paedophilia, and the Prophet Muhammad is a paedophile.
He wrote similar ideas in his blog in June last year. He said that he reached his conclusion as the result of a logical chain of thought, noting that the Prophet had a spouse who was underage.
According to this report, the court found Halla-aho’s arguments insincere, even though they appeared logical. The court stated that logic is no defence when religious questions are involved.
According to the court, Halla-aho had no intention of holding a proper discussion on negative aspects of the Islamic faith, but to desecrate the sacred values of the religion under the guise of freedom of speech.
It also found that his his views could feed religious intolerance.
Halla-aho was also charged in connection with another statement he made in the same blog article, He claimed that robbing passers-by and scrounging taxpayers’ money might be a genetic characteristic of Somalis. In the view of Deputy Prosecutor-General Jorma Kalske, this constituted incitement against an ethnic group.
The court, however, acquitted Halla-aho on this charge. It found that Halla-aho was simply trying to use satire to criticise authorities for not reacting to a newspaper editorial, which suggested that killing people was a “national, and possibly downright genetic special characteristic” of the Finnish people.
HAT TIP: Bill
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
November 17th, 2009 at 9:53 am
His free speech rights have been breached – he was only stating the truth.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I can see the headlines now
“Jussi Halla-aho in Allah hoohah!”
November 17th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Free Speech: New definition is that it is only free when you do not make comments that upset religious beliefs. However, in the UK, when Richard Dawkins refused to debate with “people of faith” because it merely leant them credibility they then said he could not cope with their “religious facts” and, no doubt, their silky debating ability i.e. endless repetition of the same old biblical junk. The other response was that Dawkins should keep his mouth shut becuase he lacked the theological knowledge to refute them.
I am delighted that the admirable Finnish guy is saying what he wants to say. If they don’t like it they are free to put a contrary argument.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Well prophet mo did have a 9 year old wife, that makes him a peado in the eyes of decent society and the law in any civilised country, he did state a fact, prophet mo is a peado end of.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
“The court also stated that logic has no significance when religious questions are involved.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
November 17th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....919413.ece
Muslim academics and students are turning against Darwin’s theory…
re: the article, so the guy is going to appeal, his comments will be spread far and wide – many people will agree with him & despair at this court’s lack of even handed justice. The people who brought this case will achieve the exact opposite of that which they intended.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
P.S. “violating the sanctity of religion.” surely this can not be a crime in the western world in the twenty first century – IMHO either the law should be repealed, or a new law “violating the logic of reason.” should be enacted to even things out…
November 17th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Every time anyone states this fact, some muslim somewhere is offended.
So why don’t the shariah courts stop sanctifying paedophilia?
Then we could stop staying it!
However, it would not change the fact that Mo married a 6 year old and raped a 9 year old. (even if it was only statuary rape.)
November 17th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
‘Violating the sanctity of religion’? What kind of nonsense offence is that?
Do the Finns also have laws about questioning the existence of trolls or spreading false rumours about smurfs?
November 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Yes StuartH they do. They just said it. Put trolls,smurfs, Barbie, or anything into a religious context and you can no longer criticize it.
Now religious want to debate Dawkins. How can he? as soon as he says something he violates all these blaspheme laws. At this rate the only thing we will be able to do is look at their comments with a blank stare because they may interpret laughing out loud as insulting.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
It’s disturbing that stating something that’s demonstrably true can be a crime. Especially in a country so usually enlightened as Finland.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
*stares blankly* what an utter arse the finnish law has made of reason
November 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“Each one hopes that, if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crododile will eat him last.”
Churchill was referring to countries that pandered to Hitler’s Nazis. But his remark is equally applicable to countries that pander to the paedophile’s rugbutters.
(I thought this analogy was original, but on Googling to make sure I got the quote right, I find that others thought of it first.)
November 17th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“his views could feed religious intolerance”
So not unlike several Quranic or biblical verses then?
I’ll tolerate the right of religious people to believe in nonsense – but don’t expect me to tolerate the nonsense itself!
November 17th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I was thinking along the same lines, Robert, though it’s been said before. What about the bile and vitriol that the followers of this lunatic spew forth regarding any other belief system than their own – particularly the Jewish faith? Is that perfectly acceptable then? I’m nonplussed!!
November 17th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
The Telegraph article quoted by rog says that (in a survey) poll “…62 per cent of Muslim professors and students believed evolution to be an “unproven theory”, compared with 10 per cent of non-Muslim professors”. Remember this is from the brightest and best that Islam has to offer. I am seriously worried – what are the rest like?
November 17th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Come on now, Finland, you’re supposed to be Scandinavia’s tough guys. The Danes are totally showing you up.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
So…it’s not ok to criticize a religion even if it advocates doing something illegal or morally reprehensible, huh?
I’m tempted to start a church that worships Bonnie and Clyde, so’s we can all go out and rob banks and it’ll be part of our “faith”…
November 18th, 2009 at 7:21 am
@Lucky Jean:
Back then banks actually had cash to steal. But you will have to find something a lot worse than robbing cash before you can compete with fathers signing so-called ‘marriage’ contracts with old men for the right to violate their pre-puberty daughters.
Come on courts – try suing me for that comment!
November 18th, 2009 at 11:30 am
“The court stated that logic is no defence when religious questions are involved.”
There you have it, logic does not apply to religion apparently. I can see this ruling getting overturned on appeal once it reaches a judge with a backbone.