Finnish MP compares gays to dogs in a parliamentary debate

[Tiriol]

As reported by Helsingin Sanomat: a Finnish MP uses a canine comparison during a parliamentary debate about gay adoption.

Canine comparison during gay adoption debate raises furore in Parliament

Language used by a True Finns MP in Parliamentary debate on a bill that would allow one of the partners in a registered same-sex relationship to legally adopt the child of the other partner has sparked an outcry on the propriety of language used in Parliament.
Opposing the proposal for “internal adoption”, MP Pentti Oinonen speculated on Tuesday that if gay and lesbian couples are allowed to adopt, the next step may be demands to allow people to marry their dogs.
He also pondered the possibility that children in such a home might suffer negative consequences if they witness their parents making love.
The debate was presided over by Deputy Speaker Seppo Kääriäinen (Centre), who did not take issue with what Oinonen said.

There was no plenary session on Wednesday. Helsingin Sanomat asked Speaker of Parliament Sauli Niinistö (Nat. Coalition Party) where he thinks the line should be drawn on what kinds of things can be said in Parliament.
“The requirements of the criminal law and good conduct naturally apply to everyone. For work in the Parliamentary chamber there are separate rules of stable and dignified behaviour, and of behaviour that does not cause offence. This has been seen mainly to apply to debate among Members of Parliament.”

Is it possible for police to take issue with what an MP says?
“It is. This can happen if the behaviour of a Member of Parliament is punishable under the law. This would require the lifting of an MP’s immunity. Removal of immunity is decided, in the final instance, in a vote by Parliament itself .”

Does a Member of Parliament have greater freedom of speech than someone on an Internet message board?
“The starting point is to protect the freedom of speech. It always has to be kept in mind that great freedom brings with it great responsibility. Naturally there are limits to the content of speeches, where the criminal law and good conduct apply.”

Why is it not permissible to accuse someone of lying in Parliament, but it is possible to compare gays and animals with each other?
“An accusation of lying is somehow legendary - not a legend, but legendary. Avoiding lying is mainly the protection of debate.”

Did something like this appear to have happened?
“Identifying a certain group of people and an animal in a derogatory manner is close to a crime.”

Is it permissible to violate human rights in the name of Parliamentary freedom?
“Parliamentary freedom protects human rights. It is a great idea.”

Is it permissible to make hurtful claims, like saying that children can be psychologically traumatised by their parents’ lovemaking?
“When holding a debate on this area, good conduct absolutely has to be observed.”

How can an MP be punished if he or she has clearly overstepped the limits of good taste?
“If no crime has taken place, the punishment is up to the voters. Under the rules of Parliament, an MP can be given an immediate reprimand, or be ejected from the chamber.”

Who determines if an MP acts in a stable and dignified manner, as the constitution demands?
“It is up to the speaker - either immediately in the chamber, or after discussions with the other speakers. The matter can be brought before the Parliamentary Presidium.”

“Do you feel that Oinonen’s words were appropriate?
“They were certainly not in good taste.”

The True Finns are basically a reactionary party that opposes EU membership (or at least used to, I'm no longer sure...) and that takes a very dim view of immigrants. It is not a right-wing party, per se, since it also supports many of the state apparati that are closely associated with a "nanny state". Recently they have been under a lot of negative attention, thanks to accusations of racism - and now this. The outcry was bad enough that the MP in question had to apologize publicly, but I hope that it won't end there. I do hope that the fellow faces criminal charges for this. It would also remind our politicians (and maybe our bureaucrats, as well) that they are not above the law.

[The Romulan Republic]

First off, nothing I read in this post showed that he actually compared or equated gay people to dogs. It sounded more like he was playing the old slippery slope fallacy with regards to gay marriage leading to other changes in the definition of marriage.

Opposing the proposal for “internal adoption”, MP Pentti Oinonen speculated on Tuesday that if gay and lesbian couples are allowed to adopt, the next step may be demands to allow people to marry their dogs.
He also pondered the possibility that children in such a home might suffer negative consequences if they witness their parents making love.

Sounds like what you'd expect from a typical American conservative. I'm a bit surprised to here it from supposedly more liberal northern Europe, though I admit I don't know a great deal about the region politically.

Does a Member of Parliament have greater freedom of speech than someone on an Internet message board?
“The starting point is to protect the freedom of speech. It always has to be kept in mind that great freedom brings with it great responsibility. Naturally there are limits to the content of speeches, where the criminal law and good conduct apply.”

I note this only to point out that the answer the Speaker of Parliament gave is not in fact an answer to the question asked.

Why is it not permissible to accuse someone of lying in Parliament, but it is possible to compare gays and animals with each other?

Unless there's more to the story than what I just read, he did not compare gay people and animals.

Is it permissible to violate human rights in the name of Parliamentary freedom?
“Parliamentary freedom protects human rights. It is a great idea.”

Ooh, nice evasion on that question.

Is it permissible to make hurtful claims, like saying that children can be psychologically traumatised by their parents’ lovemaking?
“When holding a debate on this area, good conduct absolutely has to be observed.”

Three points here:

First, "Is it permissible to make hurtful claims"? I mean, that's just a stupidly worded question from whoever asked it, since "hurtful claims" is pretty damn vague, and there's no way you could ban all of them.

Second, I would think that "children can be psychologically traumatized by their parents' lovemaking" regardless of their parent's genders. Though I realize that's not the main issue under discussion here.

Third, another question dodged by the Speaker.

The outcry was bad enough that the MP in question had to apologize publicly, but I hope that it won't end there. I do hope that the fellow faces criminal charges for this. It would also remind our politicians (and maybe our bureaucrats, as well) that they are not above the law.

What would fining or jailing a man for being a bigot/idiot accomplish here?

Consider that unless Finland is a fairly anti-gay country, his words will simply make him and his party look like fools. But if it is censored, and especially if he gets fines or even jail time for having an offensive opinion, there will likely be a backlash. I don't know if Finland as a whole values free speech nearly as much as North America, but in general I feel that totally aside from the importance of protecting free speech as a legal right, it is pragmatically wiser to follow the philosophy of "give them rope to hang themselves with," rather than censoring fools and thereby helping them to play the victim card.

As an example (which is by no means an exact parallel but which I think conveys the basic point I'm trying to make), had Palin been arrested for hate speech for her comments during the last US election, I would rather expect McCain to be President today (or a civil war to be going on). Obviously, Finland is a politically very different country, but I think that the same basic principle has at least some applicability. Sometimes, its better to let the jackasses make fools of themselves.

[Lord of the Abyss]

First off, nothing I read in this post showed that he actually compared or equated gay people to dogs. It sounded more like he was playing the old slippery slope fallacy with regards to gay marriage leading to other changes in the definition of marriage.

It certainly seems like he is to me. He's equating gays wanting to marry each other to people wanting to marry their dogs, which is equating gay people to dogs.

[The Romulan Republic]

First off, nothing I read in this post showed that he actually compared or equated gay people to dogs. It sounded more like he was playing the old slippery slope fallacy with regards to gay marriage leading to other changes in the definition of marriage.

It certainly seems like he is to me. He's equating gays wanting to marry each other to people wanting to marry their dogs, which is equating gay people to dogs.

Well technically he's not comparing gay marriage to people marrying dogs. That was a mistake on my part. He's actually comparing gay adoption to people marrying dogs. Which is even more strange.

Again, though, it sounds to me like the typical slippery slope fallacies you see a lot in political debates. Ie, acceptance of gays will lead to all kinds of other unrelated social breakdowns, or something. Maybe he does equate gays and dogs. I'm not denying that. But there's nothing he's quoted as saying in the OP that explicitely says that.

I also want to make clear before the inevitable accusations and flames that I am not defending or agreeing with this man's opinions. Just to make that very clear.

[Tiriol]

Just for shit and giggles, the motion to allow gay couples the right of adoption has been passed with enormous majority. As reported by YLE News. This ought to make the MP mentioned in the OP a public laughing stock in the Parliament, even if he wasn't so before.

Parliament Approves Internal Adoption Bill
published today 02:24 PM

The Finnish parliament has passed a bill allowing internal adoption among partners of registered same gender relationships. The bill was approved by 108 votes to 29. Some 61 MP’s were absent for the vote.

This new legislation allows internal adoption of children of registered same sex partners. The child can only have two parents and approval must be granted by the child’s biological parents.

The aim of the legislation is to promote the legal rights of children within a registered same sex partnership.

Parliamentarians of the governing coalition were given a free vote on the issue. Less than half of the Prime Minister’s centre party parliamentarians voted in favour of the bill. A small majority of the conservative National Coalition party MPs voted in support.

Six members of the Christian Democrat parliamentary group opposed the bill.

Personally I find it rather sad that the Christian Democrats voted against the bill; I otherwise agree with many of their official stances and party lines, but the stubborn stance on gay rights is a major sore point with them. However, I find it heartening to see a bill being approved with such support.

[Solauren]

My only question about this bill is the whole 'only have two parents' and 'permission of biological parents'.

Does this mean that with a disolved heterosexual union that produced children, where one of the partners entered into a homosexual union, that the parent not involved in the same-sex union would have to give up their parental rights?

or simply
Mom + Dad have kids. Parents break up, Dad marries a dude. Does Mom have to give up her rights for the dude to adopt?

[Edi]

That fuckwit did not directly compare gays to dogs in his wording. He just asked that if gays are allowed to marry or adopt the children their spouse of the same gender may have, shall we then also allow people to marry their beloved pet dogs too? The tone of voice when he delivered the comment in Parliament made it clear that he considers gays and the ideas of gays being allowed to marry and adopt an abomination. Typical American fundie asshole in attitude, though his kind are fortunately pretty rare here.

He issued an "apology" yesterday which was basically "I'm sorry if anyone was offended, I didn't mean that, I was just saying my opinion and expressing thoughts in a way the regular Finnish people would understand."

So fuck him. He's a troglodyte of the worst sort.

As for Speaker Niinistö, he cannot, due to his position, go and ream that wanker a new asshole in public, because then it could be interpreted as an encroachment on the MP's freedom of speech (since the Speaker is senior to a regular MP and in a more prestigious position). There would be nothing to stop other MPs from raking him over the coals for what he said, though. Too bad that there is a little bit too much of a hush-hush mentality that discourages such calling out in public.

[Edi]

My only question about this bill is the whole 'only have two parents' and 'permission of biological parents'.

Does this mean that with a disolved heterosexual union that produced children, where one of the partners entered into a homosexual union, that the parent not involved in the same-sex union would have to give up their parental rights?

or simply
Mom + Dad have kids. Parents break up, Dad marries a dude. Does Mom have to give up her rights for the dude to adopt?

I'd have to read the new law in full, but that'd be the baseline assumption. It was in the old laws, if you allow your kids to be adopted, you lose all parental rights. Of course, if you don't give permission, no adoption can go through unless you lose custody due to court order.