SDP ja eurovaalit
SDP:n vaalitulos oli eurovaaleissa surkea, eikä sitä muuksi kannata selittää. Se on pitkäaikaisen kehityksen seurausta enkä usko, että puoluekokousvalinnat siihen juurikaan vielä suuntaan tai toiseen vaikuttivat, kuten ei vaikuttanut hyvien ehdokkaiden laadukas vaalityökään.
Tulevaisuuden parempien tulosten rakennusaineita voi hakea äänestäjien mobilisaatiosta. Omien kannattajien saaminen äänestyspaikoille selittää sen, että Rkp on jo toisissa eurovaaleissa saanut paikan, vaikka se ei kansallisten vaalien kannatuksella siihen läheskään yltäisi. Alhainen 40 prosenttiin jäänyt vaaliosanotto kouraisi eniten demareita, mikä näkyi (entisillä) vahvoilla kannatusalueilla. Viimeisessä gallupissa ennätyksellisen iso 46 % ei halunnut nimetä ainuttakaan puoluetta, jota kannattaisi. Gallupin ”äänestysprosentti” oli näin ollen 54 ja SDP:n kannatus 1.3 prosenttia korkeampi kuin nyt vaalissa. Tästä voi ekstrapoloida, mitä SDP:n kannatus olisi voinut olla esimerkiksi 85 prosentin vaaliosanotolla.
Vaikka SDP:n kannatus olisi näin ollut siedettävämmällä tasolla, olisi se silti ollut kaukana siitä mitä sen pitäisi ja mitä se voisi olla. Vuodessa ei ihmeitä tehdä, mutta on täysin mahdollista kääntää luvut sen verran paremmiksi, että puolueella on vielä ensi vaalienkin jälkeen todellista sananvaltaa. Sanojen ja tekojen vastaavuus on tässä yksi avainasia. Vain entisin eväin jatkamalla trendin kääntäminen ei kuitenkaan onnistu.
26.5. 2014
Ukraina, informaatio, disinformaatio ja fasismi, Kirjoitus Demokraatti-lehdessä, 21.5.2014
Kriisi- ja konfliktitilanteissa päättäjiltä odotetaan nopeita kommentteja ja ratkaisuja. Tämä koskee myös ja erityisesti Ukrainan tapahtumia. Kun seuraa Ukrainasta tulevaa ja sitä koskevaa runsasta uutisvirtaa ja erityisesti sitä, mitä netissä levitetään, on ensimmäiseksi aina syytä muistaa että suurin osa siitä voi olla tahallisesti tai tahattomasti levitettyä vääristelevää disinformaatiota. Sen lähteenä ja levittäjänä voi olla niin valtiollinen kuin ei-valtioillinen toimija. Tällöin on suuri houkutus ja vaara, että kommentteja vaaditaan ja annetaan puutteellisen tai väärän tiedon perusteella.
Myös selvästi väärän ja propagandana levitettävän tiedon taustalla voi olla jokin todellinen tapahtuma, jota vääristellään ja tulkitaan niin, että alkuperäinen totuus katoaa tai muuttuu päinvastaiseksi.
Kommenttien, arvioiden ja ennen kaikkea päätösten tulee kuitenkin perustua mahdollisimman oikeaan tietoon. Tällaisessa tilanteessa olisi äärimmäisen tärkeätä, että päättäjillä olisi käytössään myös sellaista riippumatonta seuranta- ja analysointikapasiteettia, joka pystyisi erottamaan selvästi valheellisen ja totuudenmukaisen informaation toisistaan ja myös toteamaan sen, milloin se ei ole mahdollista. Tämän puutteen joudumme toteamaan niin mediassa kuin hallinnossa ja yhtä lailla Suomessa kuin vaikkapa Euroopan Unionissa.
Lähtökohtaisesti ei ole myöskään yhtään sellaista valtiollista tai ei-valtiollista tiedonvälittäjää, jonka välittämää uutisointia voisi pitää sataprosenttisen luotettavana. Tämä koskee kaikkia Ukrainan kriisin osapuolia ja toimijoita.
Omassa luokassaan ovat Venäjän yhä suuremmassa määrin valtion ohjauksessa olevat tiedotusvälineet, jotka ovat lähes täysin tosiasioista piittaamattoman propagandan levittämisen välineitä. Tämä alkaa jo käytetyistä nimikkeistä, kuten fasismista, joka on ehkä yleisin ja historiallisesti tehokkain venäläisessä uutisoinnissa käytetty pelotesana.
Sivuutan fasismin monet määritelmät ja koitan luetella piirteitä jotka ovat olleet eri aikoina fasistisille liikkeille tunnusomaisia. Näihin kuuluu etniseen ja kielellistä yhteenkuuluvuutta korostava nationalismi, johtajuuden keskitys, rappiokulttuuria suosivan demokratian halveksunta, voimapolitiikan ihannointi, vastustajien väkivaltainen kohtelu ja pelottelu, turvautuminen manipuloituihin kansanäänestyksiin, homofobia, luokkavastakohtaisuuksien peittely ja valtiollisen ohjaukseen alistuvan monopolikapitalismin suosiminen, tiedonvälityksen kontrollointi ja keskitetty valtiollinen propaganda sekä vahvan johtajan palvonta.
Sellaista maata, jossa ei olisi lainkaan näitä tunnusmerkkejä täyttäviä liikkeitä ja toimijoita, on Euroopasta vaikea löytää. Kaikissa maissa niihin on suhtauduttava vakavana uhkana demokratialle, oikeusvaltiolle ja ihmisoikeuksien toteutumiselle. Vielä pahempaa on, jos tällaiset toimintatavat pääsevät isännöimään valtiollista vallankäyttöä.
Itä-Ukrainassa kaupungintalojen valtauksia tehneet, tiesulkuja pystyttäneen ja vastustajiaan terrorisoivat separatisteiksi kutsutut aseistetut toimijat ja heidän kansainväliset tukijansa täyttävät myös lähes kaikki edellämainitut fasismin tunnusmerkit, ainakin huomattavasti selkeämmin kuin tällä polttomerkillä leimattu Kiovan hallitus.
Tällä en tarkoita, etteikö myös Kiovan hallituksen puolella esiintyisi vaarallisia fasistisia liikkeitä, kuten Oikea sektori ja muut, joita Kiovan hallitus ei ole kyennyt eikä ehkä aina halunnutkaan riisua aseista ja saattaa vastuuseen teoistaan. Se että ongelma ratkaistaisiin virallistamalla tällaiset ryhmät osaksi valtiollista turvallisuuskoneistoa ei ole hyväksyttävä eikä kestävä ratkaisu.
Niin läpikorruptoituneessa maassa kuin Ukraina on kaiken sen hallitukselle annettavan tuen oltava avointa ja läpinäkyvää sekä ankaran ehdollista niin taloudellisten reformien kuin poliittisten päätösten suhteen. Kenenkään väärinkäytöksiä, perusteetonta tai kontrolloimatonta väkivaltaa tai vihapuhetta ei tule katsoa läpi sormien siksi, että niihin turvautuvat edustaisivat geopoliittisesti mieluisampaa vaihtoehtoa. Se olisi kaikkien ukrainalaisten toiveiden pettämistä eikä edistäisi Ukrainan demokraattisen oikeusvaltion rakentamista ja sen eheyden turvaamista.
Speech ”To Promote, to Implement, to Monitor” in the International seminar Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Best Practices, 21.5.2014, Helsinki
Ladies
and gentlemen,
It
is an honour to open this seminar on the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with focus on the best practices on how to
promote, implement and monitor the Convention.
The
Convention entered internationally into force on 3 May 2008. It is a major
milestone in the effort to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal
enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with
disabilities.
Structural
obstacles, attitudes and lack of knowledge on the rights of persons with
disabilities have created barriers for the fulfillment of their rights and
their equal participation to society.
The
Convention views persons with disabilities as ”subjects” with rights,
who are capable of claiming those rights and making decisions for their lives
based on free and informed consent and being active members of society rather
than as “objects” of social protection or medical treatment.
The
Convention clarifies the obligations and duties of States to respect and ensure
the equal enjoyment of all human rights by all persons with disabilities.
As
you are all aware, Finland has not yet ratified the Convention but is on a
process of doing so. Finland signed the Convention and its Optional Protocol on
30 March 2007. The intention is to ratify both of them before the end of this year.
To
speed up the ratification, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs set up an
interdepartmental working group in May 2011 to prepare a report, including a
draft for a Government Bill. The working group consisted of members
representing the relevant authorities and civil society, including disability
organisations. The working group finished its work by the end of 2013, after
which the draft Government Bill was disseminated for further comments to
relevant authorities and civil society organisations. Furthermore, the draft
was published on the Ministry for Foreign Affairs’ web page in order for anyone
interested to be able to access the document and to submit comments of it. Nearly
60 statements were received from different stakeholders.
Currently,
the draft is being finalized taking into account both the information received
from these statements and the on-going legislation reform processes. The
intention is to submit the Government Bill to the Parliament by autumn.
Why
has the ratification process taken time?
When
fulfilling its international obligations, Finland aims primarily at harmonizing
its national legislation to be in accordance with the treaty in question.
Accordingly,
the said working group identified the necessary measures to be taken before the
ratification of the Convention. Those relate mainly to the new provisions on
the right to self-determination that are being prepared by the Ministry of
Social Affairs and Health. Furthermore, some provisions are related to the
current reform of the non-discrimination legislation. The Government Bill for
the new non-discrimination legislation was submitted to the parliament in
April. Earlier legislative amendments to the Municipality of Residence Act and
the Social Welfare Act concerned the right of persons with disabilities in need
of institutional or residential care to move from one municipality to another. By
harmonizing our legislation, we are in a better position to have a real impact
on the rights of persons with disabilities.
However,
the mere changes to the legislation are not enough. We have to ensure that the
rights of the persons with disabilities are protected also in practice. The
Convention affirms the duty of the States to enact for the promotion and
protection of the rights of persons with disabilities not only at governmental
level but also at regional and local levels. Seminars like the present one are
a very good way of raise the awareness of the Convention among all the
stakeholders on all levels. Awareness-raising is key in promoting the rights of
persons with disabilities.
Moving
on to the promotion, protection and monitoring of the Convention and its Article
33 which provides that “States Parties shall maintain, strengthen, designate or
establish within the States Party, a framework, including one or more
independent mechanisms, as appropriate, to promote, protect and monitor
implementation of the Convention”.
Finland
has not yet designated such a mechanism since the ratification process is not
completed. However, the aforementioned working group suggested that the
mechanism should be designated to our National Human Rights Institution which
is comprised of the Human Rights Centre and its subordinate Human Rights
Delegation as well as of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. All the statements
received by the Ministry on the draft Government Bill were supportive of this approach.
Indeed, it is important to ensure the full participation of the persons with
disabilities and their representative organizations to the monitoring process
of the Convention.
In
Finland, we have a well-established practice to cooperate and involve civil
society in all stages of reforming legislation. Also in our reporting practice
regarding our human rights treaty obligations, we encourage the civil society
to actively participate in the reporting process. Usually, when a periodic
report is prepared, civil society is asked to provide written views on the
information to be included in the report. In addition, the interested civil
society representatives are invited to attend a discussion on the draft report
before its finalisation.
The
organisations of persons with disabilities have actively participated in
international processes related to the human rights of persons with
disabilities, in particular in relation to the drafting of the present Convention.
Organisations
of persons with disabilities and the National Council on Disability have also
been consulted on the legislative amendments needed for the ratification of the
Convention. In addition to the representatives of the public administration and
the local and regional authorities, the National Council on Disability (VANE),
the Finnish Disability Forum and the Centre for Human Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (VIKE) were represented in the working group set up to outline the
measures necessitated by the ratification of the Convention and its Optional
Protocol.
One
more example of a good practice is the participation of persons with
disabilities in a Disability Coordination Group established by our Ministry.
The purpose of the Coordination Group is to enable the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs and Ministry of Social Affairs and Health together with disability
organisations to discuss timely matters in the international sphere related to
the rights of persons with disabilities.
Finally,
I would like to emphasize that the rights of persons with disabilities is a
priority area in our Human Rights Strategy and Action Plan for 2013-2015,
adopted in 2013. Also, in the next Governmental Report to the Parliament on the
human rights policy of Finland, disability rights are emphasized. In the
Report, special attention will be placed in ensuring the possibilities of all
persons to participate in the decision-making processes concerning their
rights.
Let
me conclude by wishing you a very productive and interesting seminar here in
Helsinki today.
Thank
you.
Ukraine, information, disinformation and fascism
In crisis and conflict situations decision-makers are expected to comment events immediately and provide solutions.This applies also, and especially, to events in Ukraine. When following the abundant flow of news coming from and concerning Ukraine, and in particular what is posted on the Internet, we should always remember that most of it, whether intentionally or inadvertently, may be disinformation, irrespective whethee of the source and distributor is a governmental or a non-governmental actor. In such cases, there is a great temptation and danger that comments are asked and given on the basis of incomplete or false information. Even clearly false information which is spread as propaganda may stem from some real event, which is then distorted and interpreted so that the original truth is lost or becomes the opposite. Comments, evaluations and, above all, decisions must be based on information that is as accurate as possible. In such a situation it would be extremely important for decision-makers also to have access to the kind of independent monitoring and analytical capacity that would be able to distinguish false and truthful information clearly from each other and also to state when this is not possible. We have to note that this is lacking both in the media and in administration, and just as equally in Finland as in, for instance the European Union.
Furthermore we have to recognize that in principle there is no governmental or non-governmental disseminator of information that can be considered one hundred percent reliable. This applies to all parties and actors also in the Ukrainian crisis. In a class of their own are the Russian media, which to an increasing degree are steered by the state and are tools for spreading propaganda, with almost complete disregard for facts. This starts already with the use of labels, such as fascism, which is perhaps the most common and historically the most effective term of intimidation used in news coverage by the Russian media. I won’t dwell on the many definitions of fascism; instead, I shall attempt to list features that at different times have been characteristic of fascist movements. These include nationalism emphasizing a sense of ethnic and linguistic affinity, centralization of leadership, contempt for democracy that favours decadent culture, idealization of power politics, use of violence against and intimidation of opponents, resorting to manipulated referendums, homophobia, denial of class conflicts, a bias in favour of monopoly capitalism that submits to steering by the state, control of the dissemination of information and centralized state propaganda, and the cult of a strong leader. It is difficult to find a country in Europe that would not have any movements or actors meeting these characteristics. In all countries these should be seen as a serious threat to democracy, the rule of law and the implementation of human rights. Even worse is if such still if such movements get to dominate a government’s use of power. In Eastern Ukraine the armed actors called separatists and their international supportes who have seized town halls, set up roadblocks and terrorized their opponents, meet almost all of these characteristics of fascism, at least much more clearly than the Government in Kiev that has been branded as such. By this I do not mean that there are no dangerous fascist movements, such as the Right Sector and others, on the side of the Kiev Government that it has not been able, or perhaps has not always been willing, to disarm and hold accountable for their acts. Solving the problem by granting such groups an official status in the state security apparatus is neither an acceptable nor a sustainable solution. In a country as completely corrupt as Ukraine, all support given to its Government must be open and transparent, as well as strictly conditional with regard to economic reforms and political decisions. No one’s abuse of democracy and Human rights, unjust or uncontrolled violence or hate speech should be overlooked because those resorting to such means represent the geopolitically more favourable alternative. That would be betraying the hopes of all Ukrainians and would not promote the construction of democratic rule of law in Ukraine and securing its integrity. 19.5. 2014
