Canine comparison during gay adoption debate raises furore in Parliament

Sauli Niinistö

MP Pentti Oinionen

print this

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.”


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Split among government parties on internal adoption rights of same-sex couples (27.4.2009)

Helsingin Sanomat