What we’re dealing with here is a total lack of respect for the law
#1010. Torstai, 24. helmikuuta 2005 klo 20.45.46, kirjoittanut Jani. 35
Back in November I happened to hear about the scandalous events surrounding the elementary school of Korivaara; apparently, the children in the school were being terrorized by a deeply religious headmaster and his fellow teachers (summarized in English by The Butt Ugly Weblog).I’ve recorded some of the news covering the issue by Kaleva.plus; so far Finnish only, sorry. I was amazed by not only such events being possible in modern-day Finland, but by the fact that the whole issue seemed to cause nothing more than a few headlines and some shaking of heads in disbelief. #
I witnessed headmaster Pöyry himself dismiss all charges against him, appealing - in a manner which to me could not have been more disgusting - to the fact that the children had “repeatedly given him good feedback”.The same repulsive theme of the children “proving” Pöyry’s innocence came up again after the biggest stir had passed. (That’s what children go to school for, to give their teachers grades, right?) #
The children’s parents, who came forward with their worries about what’s going on in their school, have reported the children as being frightened for themselves and their loved ones (for the chance of going to Hell, IIRC) and having prayed compulsively as their means of trying to make it better. This to me spelled the children had been severely brainwashed and manipulated, thus making any references to their “liking” their headmaster nothing more than expressions of deeply rooted fear of criticizing his authority. #
And nothing happened. The issue was bounced around by authorities, until the report by an independent psychologist, proving the children suffer from anxiety and fear, was dismissed by the state provincial office of Oulu, and Pöyry along with the rest of the school personnel was basically cleared of almost any wrongdoing. #
But my peak of tolerance had already been reached. I had posted my rough idea of what I think of Pöyry and his “methods of upbringing” onto my blog, not once but many times. I’d said it straight as well as indirectly. #
Then yesterday, I got an e-mail from a police officer of the city of Oulu police, informing of me of an inquiry for defamation of character, requested by Pöyry. In addition to telling me the local (Jyväskylä) police would interrogate me about this, there was a demand for the material regarding Pöyry to be removed from my site. There was no reason (or a law) given for this, neither was there any mentioning of a court order having been issued (and I haven’t been delivered one), which to my understanding is required in Finland for the police to be able to tell me to do this. #
So I asked the policeman for the reasons, as well as the specific parts of my site he was referring to (since I had written about the issue several times). Today he replied, referring to a law which covers .fi-domains. As you can see, mine is .net. And even if it was .fi, as far as I can tell, the law in question doesn’t entitle the police to order me to censor my words. #
This time he did single out the specific texts I had to remove, so I did that, since I guess it’s not a valid reason not to do what the police tell you to, even if their reasons for telling you to do so seem to be full of shit. Whether they are, that’s for a higher authority to decide, and that’s exactly what Tuomas Kilpi, the editor of another Finnish blog and a computer magazine asked them to do (for which I’m very grateful to him). As for me, I’ve requested Electronic Frontier Finland for their comments on this. #
I’ve not yet been to a hearing, but am expecting to, since the officer in question did phone me after I had informed him of having done the removals he’d asked me (he’d found another copy - from his browser’s cache), and thus verified himself as being for real (even though the headers and everything seemed to be valid, with e-mail you never know) and having informed the local police about the matter. #
25.2. 11:25 Fixed a typo.
21.5. 2007 22:17 Removed dead links to Enter magazine blog and Kaleva.plus. Modernized the style and techniques used. Removed quotation marks from around the title.
-with all my respect and support-
-C-: Thanks! :)
You’ve been boingboinged, Jani. Can you take the traffic? ;)
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/24/finnish_blogger_face.html
Jussi (and Phil too): Dang! Well, we’ll see how kapsi takes it. :)
Poliisin toiminnasta kannattaa tehdä heti kantelu eduskunnan oikeusasiamiehelle, vaikuttaa aika selkeältä virkavaltuuksien ylitykseltä. Poliisilaki ei anna valtuuksia tuohon eikä myöskään pakkokeinolaki. Varsinkin kun kunnianloukkauksesta voi tulla max 6kk vankeutta; oikeuskäytännössähän tilanne on tosiasiallisesti se, että korkeitaan sakkoa siitä tulee jos syylliseksi havaitaan.
Arutha: Itse asiassa Enterlehden Tuomas aikoi kannella tästä. Sillä välin on kiinnostavaa nähdä, millaisia vastauksia ylemmiltä viranomaistahoilta kuuluu Tuomaksen esittämiin, tiukkoihin kysymyksiin.
No sehän hyvä. Mutta voit itsekin tehdä hallintokantelun myös ylemmälle poliisiviranomaiselle (lääninhallitukseen). Vaikuttaa kuitenkin niin selkeältä virkarikkomukselta, että sieltä pitäisi aika äkkiä tulla näpäytys Tuulakselle.
Unohtui laittaa: Syy miksi kannattaa itse kannella poliisille on se, että oikeusasiamiehellä on todella paljon juttuja käsiteltävänä ja päätöksen saaminen sieltä yleensä kestää kauan.
Arutha: Totta. Täytyypä tarttua tuohon.
do you know about this site?
committee to protect bloggers
good luck!
Aside from the clear breach of freedom of speech by the Finnish police, this case does also point out the fallacy of allowing religious teaching in a public school, and speaks volumes about the necessity to separate church and state.
I hope that justice is done here, and that this wide open burst of media you will probably receive shine some well needed non-apathetic light on whats happening to those kids. Feel proud that you, of all people, might get the chance to speak on their behalf… There are things in this world more important than one person’s freedoms. Those kids, they’re the ones that will suffer the most from it. Be strong.
xz: I did know the site, but thanks to your mentioning it I found out they’ve now picked up the story too.
Finnpundit: I agree with you; the point of someone being allowed to use his religious beliefs to intimidate children all in the name of education is IMO in this case more sad than my being held responsible for saying how I feel about it. I’m just glad all this again brought more attention to the events, which the guy now charging me would rather have people forget and go quiet about.
C. Drake: …and you said it best. In my comments to Finnish readers, I’ve tried to point out that I’m not aiming for martyrdom in the name of freedom of speech. However, if there’s one thing that keeps me strong it’s the thought of those children, who are left in their old school, with their old teachers and probably their old (stone-aged) teaching methods as well.
I’d love to hop on the train of outrage with the rest of you, but I just don’t get what the original crime is. What did this execrable headmaster do, exactly?’
All you tell us is the following: “[A]pparently, the children in the school were being terrorized by a deeply religious headmaster and his fellow teachers.” The “ButtUgly” link gives no more details either, just sweeping generalizations.
You do add: “{A]n independent psychologist prov[ed] the children suffer from anxiety and fear.”
Well, what child in modern society doesn’t suffer from anxiety and fear? Is the level of anxiety in these children demonstrably and substantially greater than in the average child?
Besides, one can get a psychologist to “prove” pretty much anything. A decade or so ago there was a rash of children accusing their teachers of engaging in Satanic rituals with them. Psychologists swore in court that the children were telling the truth and were traumatized by their experience. All of these cases, however, turned out to be false.
I’m not trying to exonerate this headmaster. I just want more facts on what he actually did before I hang him in effigy.
I am somewhat troubled by the police’s actions in attempting to silence your blog. But if the charges being leveled against the headmaster are false (and I have no way of knowing, based on the sparse detail you provide), then they have some justification, don’t they? Wouldn’t you be upset if another blogger were spreading false acccusations against you?
Nocturne: You are right in your criticism of scarcity of information in my English posting. I would like to point out, however, and apparently I should have done this on top of this post as I originally intended to, that I’m not trying to justify my having done something that was potentially illegal. I was only trying relay my current situation, and the events leading up to this point were serving only as background to my doing what I have done, not as anything that you should judge Pöyry by.
The Finnish readers have had my collection of related newspaper articles (with the accompanying links to originals on the newspaper’s website) as their source of information for a while now for that; from them I expect a little more understanding than those of you who can’t read Finnish. However, even from them I’ve not expected declaring Pöyry as a criminal, much less being hanged; I’ve only expected them to above all see what has happened (as there still are people who don’t know about these events, and who would be outraged by them if they did), and form their opinion on it. I would rather have them see it my way, I won’t deny that, but to show them why they should, I should have a right to do since this is my blog.
From the international readers I expect nothing more than seeing the troubling activities by the police in this matter, acting as nothing more than a censor and thus declaring my words as being criminal before any court or authority with the right to do so has done.
Nocturne: BoingBoing’s article was misleading (lost in translation, perhaps?) A lot of people over here agree that Jani’s comments were potentially libelous, but the real issue here is the arbitrary behaviour by the police, which does seem to go completely against the Finnish constitution. (Though the words used by Jani were pretty light compared to most USENET flame wars, feeling slandered is a highly subjective thing.)
Even people charged with crime have to have rights. And if the police can shut down arbitrary web sites based on suspicion of crime, the entire online freedom of speech is badly stifled (which is, BTW, what makes certain copyright infringement suits so worrying: sites are shut down merely on suspicion of crime). Newspapers are required to publish a correction; they don’t get shut down or have their entire issue recalled at the whim of some person who feels that he has been defamed. Why would blogs?
So would a summary a long the lines of the be roughly accurate?: A head teachers scares children with stories of hell and that only by praying can they save themselve and their loved ones. You call him a bad teachers (and perhaps a bad man as well?). He calls the cops and say that you have slandered him. The cops call you and tell you to take down the offending material. You take it down.
It strike me (and I’m no lawyer - particulary not of Suomen laki!) that the rightness or wrongness of the Police’s actions depend on a) whether what you said was slanderous or not and b) whether the Cops have the right to ask you to take down the material even if this where the case.
I’m generally sympathetic as I feel open debate is very important (and not something that Finland as political culture is always very good at) and generally censorship should try to be avoided, but its very difficult to understand the legal ins and outs of the case.
You obviously have an international following now so try to keep us all informed in English as well if you can spare the time! Good luck.
anon.: The summary in your first paragraph to me seems to be roughly accurate, as you put it.
However, for the second paragraph, I’d have to disagree: the rightness or wrongness of police’s actions depends only on whether they have the right to do so or not. Unless you’re talking about moral “rightness” for which I will not comment on here, it seems to me that this is somewhat… what’s that word, probably the opposite of oxymoron? Anyway, my point being: if the police doesn’t have the right to make me do something, they’re wrong, and breaking the law themselves in doing so.
In addition, I’d like to emphasize the fact that there’s very little to connect the “case” of things mr. Pöyry has done, to the case of what I’ve said about him and whether or not it was slanderous. The only connection (from what I’ve read) is that had I said he’s done something he hasn’t (such as claiming he hit the children, for which I believe no claims have been made), that would almost definitely be slander. IMO, my text was focused more on how I feel about his actions. So what he did, and whether that was wrong or not (both legally and morally) has very little impact on whether or not my words about him were legal or not, and vice versa: whether or not my words about him were slander or libel or not, should make no difference when people consider the rightfulness or wrongfulness of his actions as the school headmaster.
“its very difficult to understand the legal ins and outs of the case.”
Tell me about it :D
“You obviously have an international following now so try to keep us all informed in English as well if you can spare the time! Good luck.”
I will, thanks!
Tautology
Good luck! I hope this case resolves in a clear and sane manner, and that the police (there and everywhere) can start to learn that the internet doesn’t need extraordinary measures like putting punishment before proof.
Dan: Tautology, that’s it, thanks!
The definition of libel and slander is to make insulting statements which are not true; one is in print and the other is in speech. I don’t know how these concepts translate into Finnish language and law but I would be surprised to discover that they are much different. Here in Canada you have to say something untrue about someone to get punished (barring failures of the legal system).
Good luck hunting fundamentalists. Atheists everywhere, myself included, tilt a glass to your health and fortune.
I.O.: “The definition of libel and slander is to make insulting statements which are not true; one is in print and the other is in speech.”
So the correct term in this case would be libel, not slander; thanks for the clarification! I think we only have one word (“kunnianloukkaus”) which covers all such issues in Finnish.
“Here in Canada you have to say something untrue about someone to get punished (barring failures of the legal system).”
In addition to saying something untrue there’s another, more vague point in the Finnish legislation about “degrading another person” (my translation’s probably not very reliable here), but in addition to these points on “kunnianloukkaus” the laws on freedom of speech are to be considered also, and weighing between these is what’s for the authorities to decide in cases like mine.
Thank you for your kind words!
Well, good luck. What specific cahrges were threatened if you did not comply? I presume fines of some sort.
Fundamentalists are difficult to deal with everywhere. Like Pöyry.
Esa: Thanks! The policeman didn’t say what my disobeying him would have led to. There’s been some speculation (in Finnish) on this over at EFFI’s newsgroup, but I have no definitive knowledge.
The problem is that, in practice, the police is accountable to nobody in Finland. Their overall strategy seems to be:
We decided that you are guilty. It doesn’t matter what you are guilty of, your ass is already ours. We don’t have to justify what law article makes you guilty. Should we ever have to justify ourselves, we’ll invent an article out of our magic hat. You don’t need to be able to verify that the article exists or not, even less whether it actually applies to your case, because we know the Obudsman of the Parliament personally and he will approve of our actions and dismiss your complain without further ado. THEREFORE, do as we fucking tell you NOW, or else…
Martin-Éric: Thank goodness, I’m not yet quite ready to share your degree of cynicism ;-)
But what you describe does pose some frightful scenarios as well as possibly being the idea some individual policemen (not referring to the one in question here, I don’t consider him as being that evil) have of their power as upholders of the law. What we’re fighting here is the situation evolving towards such scenarios.
I’d also like to point out that we do have institutions and people who the police are accountable to here in Finland; they are being contacted about this as I’m writing this. The superior officers of a policeman are one channel, but in addition there are independent authorities: The Ombudsman you mentioned is one, the Chancellor of Justice another. In addition, it’s possible to file an administrative complaint (not sure about the exact English word for it, sorry) with the State Provincial Offices.
In addition, as members of the European Union, we’re entitled to have possible violations ignored or dismissed by the national authorities mentioned above investigated on union level.
Jani, I also know about the Chancellor of Justic and laanihallitus. Asia on aivan yksinkertainen: virkailija on oikeassa, koska on virkailija, ja hän on virkailija, koska on oikeassa. My own experience has been that, in Finland, it’s best to do as you’re told, especially when dealing with the police - even in the face of blatantly unfair treatment and potentially illegal actions on the bureaucrat’s part- and to just move on with your life. There are places that qualify as oikeusvaltio; Finland is not one of them.
Martin-Éric: Thanks for sharing your view, although I’m sad to hear your experience has been so grim :(
I guess I can only hope mine won’t be, but we’ll see.
From ARGENTINA! BLOGGER POWER!!!
i hope every stuff come to calm
que todo el lio se campe y fuerza comunidad!
Glad to hear that the national police chief replied that the local police chief had no business pressuring you to close down your site.
Can you give me the names of the Oulu Police Officers who have been in touch with you.
Also give me an exact time scale of things as I have many issues with the Oulu Police. I intend to use it, if possible, in my complaint I am making on an issue to the Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman about the Oulu Police.
The Oulu Police is one of the most inefficient and corrupt in Finland from the very TOP.
jacob: You should be recieving some details in your e-mail soon.
[…] Commissioner and the head of Oulu Provincial Police Command have now been informed on the matter. A complaint has also been filed with the State Provincial Offices of Oulu; it’s perhaps […]