A Finnish member of parliament has been found guilty by the country’s supreme court of inciting hatred after claiming that homosexuality was a “developmental disorder”, in a conviction that prompted criticism from far-right government ministers.
But illegal to say or suggest? Fuck off.
And to think, there are people who suggest we should rejoin such people in political unions, eh?
The court ruled her claim that homosexuality was a disorder of psychosexual development was incorrect.
Seriously, the court ruing on whether a statement is true or not? Doesn’t matter if it’s incorrect – we’re all allowed to be wrong as well as right.
“Seriously, the court ruing on whether a statement is true or not?“
On what basis? What are the judge’s qualifications to rule this?
He’s a judge.
In case you hadn’t noticed that’s all that is needed these days whether you’re making a mockery of UK deportation cases or blithely placing nationwide injunctions on each and every policy proposed by DJT.
The enemy within.
Buggered if I know, Julia.
For some reason the claim made me think of the Labour Party.
If homosexuality is not “a disorder of psychosexual development”, what is it? Apparently, it is now “a natural variation of human sexuality” and not – as it was once deemed – a “sociopathic personality disturbance”. Yet, although many homosexuals are not “sociopathic”, homosexuality is clearly a disorder of sexuality just as myopia is a disorder of vision.
.
“a disorder of psychosexual development” is medically and scientifically correct.
Because it…. y’know… *is* …
The ReeeEE!!-ing Crowd has problems with the term “disorder”, which implies homosexuality is an aberration from the norm.
Which it is… by any *proper* statistical evaluation of the phenomenon, on top of actual brain physiology and observable human behaviour.
( they quite happily use the term “psychosexual development” in their Gender Theories, so they can’t claim to have a problem with that particular part of the statement..)
What raises my eyebrows is that all previous lower courts had aquitted her….
It’s *just* the Finnish Supremes who suddenly did a 180 on this…
I wonder who pushed this one all the way through the legal system up to the supremes..
The ReeeEE!!-ing Crowd has problems with the term “disorder”, which implies homosexuality is an aberration from the norm.
It’s not? I’ve seen it said that homosexuals are around 4% of the population in all cultures at all times. That sounds about right to me; enough to maintain a sub-culture, not enough to undermine heterosexual social units and species reproduction.
When did 4% doing something the other 96% doesn’t become the norm? I wonder what percentage of men in their late 60s have train sets? Is this considered to be the norm?
The “4%” is often quoted, and it’s , as usual for Sociology Research™ , tricked, and wrong…
That number has been “assembled” by a mild “redefining” of homosexuality, and collating male, female and bisexual “expressions” into one percentage.
That was somewhere in the early ’90’s in AcademiaLand™, and spread as Myth pretty quickly in the various “Rights” movements.
While the number for *total* “homosexuality” is just roughly correct, within statistical limits, the association of the word “homosexuality” in english is *entirely* with male homosexuality.
The female version is invariably termed either “lesbianism” ( the hardocre man-haters) or “sapphism” ( the more “permissive”, bisexual, and *far* more complicated variant.) .
Which was “leveraged” the hell out of by the Usual Suspects…
“If homosexuality is 4% , then if we add lesbianism, and then bisexuality….”
Which gave us those utterly bonkers 12% to even 25% numbers of the Noughties..
(Except the little inconvenient fact that actual homosexuality is pretty much a binary for males… That switch in the brain doesn’t really have a “halfway” setting..
But hey….
Females turn out to be *far* more complicated ( surprise…), for some actually pretty sound underlying behavioural reasons we see parallels with in almost all social mammals, including *all* social primates.)
Which obviously wasn’t true for anyone with eyes and half a brain, so they sort of backtracked, “redefined”, and “Borrowed” the Spectrum concept.
Which… took off on its own…alas… giving us the current Rainbow mess..
Actual homosexual males are still *about* 1.5% of the male population.
About 1 in 50, a number *long* corroborated by incidence rates in highschool where that preference ultimately develops.
Which is more than enough for a “Subculture” to exist..
It’s about the same incidence as …say…music equivalent.. the more “defined” (life)styles…
Hardcore/Gabber, Rockabilly, Punk, Folk, an inscrutable amount of obscure Metal styles… All thriving international subcultures.
Thanks, for that, G. Even further from the “norm”, then.
Well put, G!
Virtue-signallers like this…
I wouldn’t be proud of that, if I were her. I’d regard myself as having failed. Lady Bracknell comes to mind.
Not virtue-signalling, Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
Would we be allowed to describe it as a “dead end” from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective?
A bell-end, perhaps.
Dead End? I thought that was necrophilia, which is, of course, dead boring. As for buggery, it’s a black hole…
No. There are evolutionary advantages to having a small percentage of your close relatives being no breeders in terms of resource-gatherers:mouths to feed ratio.
You can pretty much guarantee that anything that appears maladaptive, if it’s been around for thousands of years (or millions) is either not particularly bad or actually *adaptive* (sickle cell trait, for example).
It’s been argued that the same gene that increases homosexual tendencies in men may cause better nurturing in females. It then sticks around for the same reason as tits on a boar.
Just one gene? Cor Blimey!! Nobbie, get the cigars from mr. Vimes’ special stash!!
Must be a super-duper-gene made of Magic Code™ to influence a whole set of behaviours, and a pretty tricky set of neural networks…
Whio the hell came up with that bit of waffle?
Note: We do have a basic idea where that switch actually sits.
It’s in a very basal bit of our brain, in the region just “beyond” our pituitary gland.
In Hardware terms it’s the area where our BIOS resides.
That’s an *extremely* basal part of our brain that is laid down very early, and *far* more “constructed” through a verrah compalacated sequential series of genes which tell the neurons where to go and where to connect to, as opposed to the higher regions of our brain which are built more like a fresh AI model waiting to be trained.
Thing is…. Those genes do not operate under the “normal” control mechanism we know from working cells, but a system that turns them on *once* and then shuts them the hell down. Forever.
Programmed one-way cascades triggered by a single “Go!” trigger.
Really, really interesting, but headache-inducing stuff, because we may know, and have observed, the general principle of *how* this works, but we haven’t a clue, except for some patchy Possibles, *which* genes are involved.
It’s a part of that “junk” DNA once its sole function has been accomplished.
Especially for humans, because ….wellll….. we’d have to do the same things I had to do to the Xenopus embrios that landed me my Master’s Thesis ….to human embrios…
Bit of a tricky moral issue , that…..
Plus you’d need several thousand(s) of them, enough from a single source, than as many possible sources to get the varieties, before you have enough basic data to start scouring the Human Genome Project, and start feeding Models….
(until then… there’s a reason why fundamental cancer research should be the first Donation target is one’s got some spare $$…
Most of what we know of the genetics of this is from studying cancers, where parts of the locks on that “growth” sequence has failed, giving us a glimpse into the Machinery. )
But *anyone* stating “This Gene Does/Controls That” at such a basal level is talking out of hir arse, and doesn’t know the first thing about molecular genetics.
With 1:1 odds any such guff is published by someone attached to an “Anthropology” department from a Polytech bumped to “University”.
Double note: Anyone wanting to add to their Library…
The Go-To actually academic student literature *primer* for this is “Genes”.
Edition IV ( which I started on, got to V during my stint at Uni) , can be picked up dirt cheep on Amazon et. al. ( $5-10 range ).
Just look up Genes IV.
Even if you don’t understand a single thing past the first chapters…
*THIS* is the seminal libram that shows what modern biology is about, and why I confidently state that anyone who simply states “This does That” is a bloody moron.
and even the paperback makes for a nice club to hit Anthropologists with…
It’s a *hefty* book… 🙂
IV also has the advantage of being on the…..cusp… of the modern molecular Revolution.
Most in it is nowadays understood to be “essentially correct, but……”…
Because in the last decades we made leaps…
But the latest version is …Academic IP priced, so not suited as a semi-sarcastic addition to a bookshelf and a glimpse into Real Science.
Blimey G, I was posting a comment on an economics blog, not writing a PhD thesis 🙂 . But if there is an hereditable component that tends to predispose toward homosexuality, we need to account for its survival despite the obvious Darwinian pressure it would face.
What do you think of this, Theo?
https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/review-of-j-d-unwins-sex-and-culture
Is the bloke onto something, or simply marching about Oxford Circus with sandwich boards?
Interesting, Norman. Thank you. I will read it carefully later…
I think J D Unwin was on to something. Every successful society has regulated sexuality – more so female than male sexuality – albeit in a variety of respects. Unrestricted sexual hedonism is likely to be a distraction from cultural and economic achievement – much as is trying to ensure ‘social cohesion’ in the face of ‘diversity’, or is coping with the social cancer of feminism…. (Societies and their governments have limited bandwidth, as it were.) So, though unrestricted sexual hedonism is probably a factor, I doubt it’s the main cause of decadence and collapse – natural disasters, elite over-production, pandemics, warfare, institutional neglect, ideological conflict, economic instability, birth rates, age structure etc can all play a part.
I thought he’d completely ignored the oldest profession. And if it’s OK for (some) men to be swordsmen, but women not, then who are these men to shag?
His point about polygamy vs. monogamy is sound, though. Polygamy is eventually going to result in an hereditary aristocracy, simply because of genetic selection as a consequence of too large a proportion of males unable to reproduce.
Interesting. I’ll have another read, and another think. I agree there’s something to this but it’s far from being the whole story and a lot of his assumptions are provably suspect.
Maybe gays have that quantum state Shrodinger thing, flipping states from Proud to victim instantanusly.
See, this tarring with the same brush is how we get these sorts of stupid verdicts.
I’ve known a few gays down the years – some are all into the Pride lark and some think it is deeply embarrassing.
Some are all for the activism and some just want to be left alone. Takes all sorts.
The wonderful Alice Weidel came out with a cracking line on this subject.
“I’m not queer. I just happen to be married to another woman.”
“I’m not queer. I just happen to be married to another woman.”
Yes, an arse badger I once met told me, “I’m not gay: I’m just a man who fell in love with Simon.”
If something is a disorder then ipso facto it is surely unlikely to inspire hatred – stand by for a new law criminalising ‘incitment to pity’.
If something is a disorder then ipso facto it is surely unlikely to inspire hatred…
What’s your evidence for that? Many mental disorders “inspire hatred” – eg the mental disorders that result in serial killing, child rape/murder, animal/human torture, etc. Many physical disorders, particularly in time of plague or pandemic, “inspire hatred” of the afflicted…eg AIDS, covid…
Freud thought homosexuality was a form of arrested development, is he cancelled too?
Yes. Long ago…
He’s been cancelled for years.
Thanks I’m obviously out of the loop
This isn’t about homosexuality.
Commies hate freedom. The court has ruled that you cannot say whatever you want to. On the ridiculous assertion that statements made are incorrect. A glaring non sequitur. The court asserts totalitarian authority over the people.
It’s time for the Finnish to assert authority over their courts.
You can believe homosexuality is some sort of developmental disorder* (from Darwin’s point of view) without hating or even disliking poofters, any more than you hate the Welsh, so their claims of trying to “stop hate” or “stop harm” by literally policing words are similarly specious, but you knew that.
There’s no “spectrum” of normal sexual orientations, because there’s only one combination of plugs and sockets to perpetuate the species, eh? No spectrum of genders observed in nature either. Lions rarely tell you their gender pronouns. I don’t think hedgehogs live in lesbian transgender polyamorus communes, and I’m afraid to Google it. Therefore, using the scientific method of whether Julian Clary floats like a duck, we can deduce that gayery is caused by watching too much She-Ra: Princess of Power. Case closed.
*I know of tards living kick-ass lives, such as Rachel Reeves
Yes.
But birds are different. I should be more specific. Avian birds. Perhaps it made since when they developed in the Jurassic Period.
If you believe in “dinosaurs”. I’ve watched the documentaries, and to suggest any insurance company would be willing to underwrite that theme park after all those customers got et is far-fetched.
I like brunettes with long legs and nice arses, whereas most blokes I know like blondes with great big hooters. I even know a bloke who only ever shagged gingers (sorry, ‘redheads’)..
That’s a spectrum.
inciting hatred
The commie court delights in ambiguous rulings. Perhaps they see life as a spectrum. The totalitarians love ambiguity for it keeps the public in line, as they really don’t know anymore what is right and wrong. A court will decide, on a whim.
Time to begin to get ready to plan on preparing to leave.
That’s a spectrum *within* a binary…
Within the gay scene there’s just as much difference as to what peeps find “attractive” in a partner ….
*AFTER* the whole “do I fancy boys or girls” is already a station in the far, far distance..
I’m with you on that, Interested, but I also like ’em with short legs and slitty eyes. And, of course, nice arses.
For my part, I prefer shaved and neat labia…not too much of a mouthful and no hairs between my teeth…
I can appreciate that, Theo, but I’m also partial to vigorous au naturelle. Brigitte in her prime – there are pictures – would fit the bill nicely.
I agree on “brunettes with long legs and nice arses”. I thought most men at least lowered the importance of “great big hooters” by the age of about 15.
A chum of mine who married a redhead used to say that “when the roof is rusty, the cellar is wet”. I wonder what he meant?
The Finns are a strange people. I once sat at dinner (in northern Finland) next to a moderately attractive woman, who told me that “We Finns love fishing, fucking and the sauna. In the winter, we do less fishing.” I wasn’t sure if it was a come-on, or an invitation to join her in the sauna (same thing), as it was in the winter.
Incidentally, they pronounce ‘sauna’ as SOW-NAH, not like us Brits with SAW-NAH.
Another Finn told me that whereas Finns and Swedes both make and drink wood-alcohol, the Swedes are more cultured, and plane their timber first, whereas Finns make do with saw-cut wood.
I wasn’t sure if it was a come-on
Bless you for a true Englishman.
That was a come-on, brother.
I have never worn a white T-shirt since the incident at the market where a young man with frosted blond streaks in his hair and an open mouth nudged his companion and exclaimed, in the loudest Mr Humphreys impression you ever heard, “Ooohhh… Bear!”
I had my arse pinched by some bloke on the way in to the Hog’s Breath Tavern in Carmel, CA, when I was over there on a spot of work in the 90s. I was at least a foot taller and wider than my abuser so I gave him credit for his boldness. The girl I was with at the time thought it hilarious. You can’t let these things bother you.
If he’s gay at least he has a sauna to meet other men with white T-shirts and moustaches instead of being the only gay Eskimo in his tribe 🙁
Heresy laws have returned in many western countries.
It’s just that the sort of “heresy” is different ….
Increasingly Tim your interpretation is wrong. Just as in North Korea or the Soviet Union, there is a state sponsored version of reality which is to override the real world if politics require, we are under a very similar regime both across the EU and the UK. Anything that contravenes:
In particular is usually fair play to be contested in the courts.
That’s why all three of the above need to be criminalized or at best subject to severe curbs. For the third of them whether we recriminalize the ‘LGB’ element as well has to be under careful consideration. Their extreme aggressiveness (at least on the activist wing) make them a clear and present danger to the social dynamic, particularly given institutional capture as we see in this case.
Amen.
Utter fucking cowardly bullshit. It is entirely proper that politicians comment on court decisions that affect the speech and views and freedoms of politicians – it’s the courts that decide on their fucking legislation, for fucks sakes.
The Finnish parliament is called the eduskunta and it appears that some of the kuntas are worthless kuntas. The government is a centre-right coalition, and the Christian Democrats and The Finns party should really hold the The National Coalition Party’s feet to the fire over this, including bringing down the government.
I’d like to say that it’s unconstitutional bullshit, too, but the Finns take their judicial independence to include almost the entirety of the justice system rather than limit it to judges/courts. So the whole thing, including the prosecution service, operates with little to no political oversight, which is why it has been captured by the left while the rest of the country has steadily moved right since WWII.
Like the rest of us, they’re going to have to sort out “what to do about the courts”. Constitutions are going to have to change otherwise unelected and unaccountable minorities are going to rule the roost.
Just think, we had Conservatives in government for 14 long years.
Most of that time they pled poverty as one reason why they could never do anything their voters wanted. Free speech doesn’t cost a penny, and is popular. Most people don’t want the police arresting people for hurty words. It would be been such an easy, cheap win for the Tories to pass a Freedom of Speech Act, could be done on a single page including all the preamble and whatnot. Treasury support required: £0. In fact it saves money.
Now consider why that never happened.
To be fair, the UK Conservatives are not the natural party of freedom of speech. That they are literally the party for protecting the establishment is part of why they have to go.
The Establishment is left-liberal; but more than half of Conservative Party members are not left-liberal, many being to the right of Farage (pbuh). So, yes, the current Establishment must be replaced; but any stable polity requires an Establishment- capable of renewal.
any stable polity requires an Establishment- capable of renewal
A shrewd friend once opined to me that the reason we Brits hadn’t had a revolution since Cromwell was that our Establishment had learned to do exactly that, in contrast with the Continentals.
Evidently, it’s now forgotten.
Exactly, Norman.
Trouble is, what they seemed to have learned from Cromwell and the period after is how to mount an internal coup. These days they don’t even have to replace the King with a Dutchman; they just hand us directly over to Brussels.
That’s also what I was taught on an Army education course, but they also pointed out the state carries a big stick and is prepared to use it as demonstrated by the Peterloo Massacre.
They chose the silliest of both worlds: blaming “lefty lawyers” and “lefty judges” (long after we removed their Brexit excuse, and that was like trying to get s favourite toy away from a screaming toddler), whilst hoping we wouldn’t notice they make the laws and they decided how judges are appointed, and how trials may be run as Mr Lammy is demonstrating.
The Conservatives 2010-2024 was an enormous planned piss take and test of the public’s gullibility. When Rishi announced “Bring Back National Service” you could hear the sniggering at thinking this would be red meat to the blue rinse brigade. Fundamental lack of respect for their customers.
The Conservatives 2010-2024 was an enormous planned piss take…
Nah, Steve. No plan, no conspiracy; just cock-up, short-termism, muddle and fudge in the name of continuity Blairism…
We are supposed to be worried about fascism coming in with the President but I see it slipping in with the Judiciary across the West, UK, Canada, Australia, all of Europe – the Judiciary are working to make their role as both arbiters and makers of law.
Yep. In US, we get frequent outbursts from district federal judges ruling that Trump must stop what he is doing.
Trump probably thinks, “Who the fuck are you?”
Trump can fire them; congress can impeach them. But they don’t.